IBStiS-i;-!  ■:■■•■■ ' 


imi 


•0M; 


■I' V-  '^ 


*   JUNTO  1922.  * 


BR  121  .V43  1922 
Vedder,  Henry  C.  1853-1935. 
The  fundamentals  of 
Christianity 


THE 
FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

A  Study  of  the  Teaching  of  Jesus  and  Paul 


jH^^ 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    •    BOSTON    •    CHICAGO    •    DALLAS 
ATLANTA    •    SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO..  Limited 

LONDON    •    BOMBAY    •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


THE  FUNDAMENTALS 
OF  CHRISTIANITY 

A  STUDY  OF  THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  AND  PAUL 


HENRY  C.  VEDDER 

Professor  op  Church  History  in  Crozer 
Theological  Seminary 


JUN  F01922 


Nrm  fork 
THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

1922 

J//  rig/its  reserve^ 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


Copyright  1922, 
By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  Printed      Published  January,  1922. 


FERRIS 

PRINTING  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  CITY 


TO 

MY   TEACHER  IN  THEOLOGY 

AUGUSTUS  HOPKINS  STRONG,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

READER,  IF  YOU  FIND  HERE  AUGHT  GOOD  AND  TRUE 

THANK  HIM. 

IF  YOU  FIND  UNTRUTH  AND  HERESY 

•BLAME  ME! 


CONTENTS 

Page 
Prolegomena  .  .  ,  .  ix 

Chapter  I 
Jesus  the  Peasant — Poet  of  Galilee  .  .  i 

Chapter  II 
Jesus  the  Prophet  and  Teacher     ...  28 

Chapter  III 
Jesus  the  Reveaier  of  God  .  .  .  54 

Chapter  IV 
Jesus  the  Herald  of  the  Kingdom  .  ,  76 

Chapter   V 
Jesus  the  Saviour  of  the  World     ...  98 

Chapter  VI 
Saul  the  Urban  Pharisee     .  .  .  .  115 

Chapter  VII 
The  Making  of  Paul  the  Apostle  .  .  .  137 

Chapter   VIII 
Paul  the  Christian.  Rabbi  ....  161 

Chapter   IX 
Paul  the  Speculative  Theologian    .  .  .  178 

Chapter  X 
After  All,  What  i$  Christianity  ?    .  .  .  209 


PROLEGOMENA 


The  specific  sources  for  the  writing  of  such  a  book  as  this 
are,  of  course,  the  Gospels,  for  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and 
the  Epistles  of  Paul,  for  the  teaching  of  the  apostle.  But 
we  cannot  understand  these  without  taking  into  account 
tlie  whole  literature  of  the  Hebrew  people,  of  which  these 
writings  are  an  inseparable  part.  Though  the  modern  Jew 
refuses  to  recognize  the  later  collection  of  writings  known 
to  us  as  the  ISTew  Testament,  he  cannot  deny  that  it  is  as 
Jewish  as  the  older  collection.  The  apostles  may  have  been 
apostate  Jews,  but  they  were  certainly  elews.  Only  a  single 
gentile  writer,  so  far  as  we  know,  contributed  aught  to  the 
'New  Testament ;  and  even  Luke  was  Jew  by  conviction,  if 
not  Jew  by  birth. 

These  writings  are,  without  exception,  deeply  imbued 
with  the  spirit  of  the  people  who  produced  them  and  of  the 
times  in  which  they  were  composed.  Jew  and  Christian 
are  agreed  in  regarding  them  as  a  divine  revelation  (though 
the  JeWj  of  course,  would  deny  this  character  to  the  later 
collection),  but  all  intelligent  people  of  both  religions  have 
come  to  recognize  in  these  books  a  human  element,  as  well 
as  a  divine.  They  were  not  handed  down  from  heaven, 
or  even  dictated  by  God  to  human  amenuenses,  but  com- 
posed under  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit  by  men  who 
liad  the  limitations  of  other  men.  The  writers  were  not 
of  a  uniform  grade  of  mentality  or  spiritual  insight,  and 
so  great  differences  are  discernible  in  the  writings ;  in  par- 
ticular, the  older  books  give  us  a  different  ideal  of  God 
and  teach  different  ethics,  from  the  later.  Men  can  no 
longer  shut  their  eyes  to  this  fact;  the  wonder  is  that  for 
ages  they  were  able  so  coniph^tolv  to  ignore  it.     Xo  canflid 

ix 


X  PROLEGOMENA 

reader  of  the  Scriptures  can  now  fail  to  see  that  they 
many  times  flatly  contradict  each  other,  and  none  of  the 
processes  of  mechanical  ^^reconciliation"  that  satisfied  our 
fathers  will  remove  this  difficulty  for  us.  There  is  but  one 
honest  method  of  reconciliation  available:  to  recognize 
these  collections  of  Avritings  as  the  record  of  a  progressive 
revelation ;  to  admit  frankly  that  the  earlier  writers  ''saw 
through  a  glass  darkly/'  and  that  even  some  of  the  later  can 
hardly  be  said  to  have  seen  ''face  to  face."  In  other  words, 
God  revealed  himself  by  degrees  to  men,  as  they  were  able 
to  receive  knowledge  of  him ;  and  the  revelations  of  earlier 
time  were  of  necessity  fragmentary  and  imperfect. 

It  inevitably  follows  from  this  understanding  of  the 
nature  of  the  Bible  that  religious  teachers  can  no  longer 
be  suffered  to  quote  the  words  of  Scripture,  on  the  assump- 
tion that  all  are  of  equal  value  and  authority.  The  old 
method  of  citing  "proof  texts"  indifferently  anywhere  from 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Revelation  is  as 
dead  as  Julius  Caesar.  It  follows  also  that  the  later  reve- 
lation is  clearer,  higher,  truer  than  the  earlier ;  and  where 
the  two  conflict,  as  they  so  often  do,  the  later  supersedes 
the  earlier.  And  for  the  Christian,  at  least,  the  highest 
revelation  of  all  is  contained  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus. 

It  should  seem  that  one  who  calls  himself  a  Christian 
might  be  safely  assumed  to  be  pledged  by  his  chosen  name 
to  accept  Jesus  the  Christ  as  his  highest  authority  in 
religion.  It  might  justly  be  assumed,  one  would  think, 
that  he  is  bound  to  evaluate  all  other  religious  teaching  in 
accordance  with  the  words  of  his  avowed  Master  and 
Teacher.  AVlioever  and  whatever  accords  with  His  words 
is  to  be  accepted.  Whoever  or  whatever  differs  irreconcil- 
ably from  His  words  is  to  be  rejected.  Why,  indeed, 
should  any  man  who  refuses  to  abide  by  tliis  principle  as 
the  touchstone  of  truth  wish  to  call  himself  a  Christian  ? 
Surely,  if  he  refuses  to  bow  to  the  supreme  authority  of 


PROLEGOMENA  XI 

Jesus,  he  might  choose  some  other  appeHation  than  Chris- 
tian that  would  better  fit  him. 

This  book  will  not  attempt  formal  proof  of  the  foregoing 
propositions.  They  will  only  incidentally,  and  almost 
accidentally,  furnish  subject  of  discussion.  They  are  the 
fundamental  data  on  which  the  entire  discussion  proceeds ; 
so  nearly  axiomatic,  in  the  author's  view,  that  the  mere 
statement  of  them  should  secure  hearty  assent  from  the 
thoughtful  Christian  reader.  Indeed,  his  fear  is  that  more 
readers  will  pronounce  them  truisms  tlian  untruths.  But 
it  is  only  fair  to  give  warning  that  any  reader  who  seriously 
dissents  from  them  will  do  well  to  lay  the  book  aside  at 
this  point,  as  it  would  probably  be  pure  waste  of  time  and 
mental  energy  for  him  to  read  further.  For  if  these 
fundamentals  are  untrue,  or  even  doubtful,  the  following 
pages  are  worthless. 

II 

Evangelists  and  preachers  of  a  certain  type  are  very 
fond  of  saying  in  public  that  '^they  believe  the  Bible  from 
cover  to  cover,''  that  they  ^^believe  every  w^ord  in  the  Bible, 
from  Genesis  to  Revelation"  (only,  that  type  usually  says 
''Revelations").  Even  theologians  educated  enough  to  be 
reasonably  intelligent,  and  so  to  know  better,  profess  and 
teach  belief  in  the  absolute  inerrancy  and  infallibility  of 
the  Bible.  Nay  more,  they  wage  open  and  bitter  warfare 
on  all  Avho  will  not  pronounce  their  shibboleths.  Nearly 
all  the  so-called  ''Bible  Schools"  are  given  over  to  this 
heresy,  which  they  proclaim  to  be  the  only  orthodoxy. 
One  very  prominent  religious  newspaper  (at  least,  it  makes 
high  pretensions  to  religion)  loses  no  opportunity  to 
defame  every  theological  institution  in  which  it  thinks 
this  doctrine  is  not  taught.  What's  in  a  name?  especially 
in  religious  parties.  There  are  "Evangelicals"  utterly  des- 
titute of  the  gospel  spirit;  "Catholics"  who  are  in  mind 


Xll  PEOLEGOMENA 

and  temper  hopeless  sectarians;  ^^Liberals"  who  are  the 
perfection  of  illiberality ;  and  ^'Orthodox"  who  hold  fast 
what  is  not,  never  was,  and  never  can  be  Christianity. 

All  signs  show  that  a  determined  and  systematic  propa- 
ganda of  this  view  of  the  Bible  has  been  undertaken,  with 
the  explicitly  avowed  purpose  of  branding  as  heretics  all 
men  and  institutions  that  fail  to  conform  to  this  standard 
of  orthodoxy,  and  the  more  than  hinted  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing some  new  form  of  organization,  if  that  prove  neces- 
sary to  the  attainment  of  the  leaders'  ends.  In  these  days 
when  the  majority  of  Christians  are  thinking  and  talking 
much  about  Christian  unity,  we  are  seriously  threatened 
with  a  new  schism. 

It  is  a  time  therefore  for  plain  speech.  In  this  age  of 
the  world  no  man  can  avow  belief  in  "the  whole  Bible, 
from  cover  to  cover,"  without  casting  painful  suspicion 
upon  either  his  sincerity  or  his  intelligence.  I^obody  needs 
to  accuse  him  of  such  defect;  he  accuses  himself  when  he 
so  speaks,  l^o  man  who  makes  public  proclamation  of 
this  belief  could  stand  cross-examination  for  five  minutes 
in  the  presence  of  the  very  audience  that  unthinkingly 
applauds  his  words.  Before  half  a  dozen  questions  had 
been  asked,  he  would  be  hedging  and  explaining  and 
retracting.  There  is  no  educated  man  living  who  really 
believes  the  Bible  from  cover  to  cover.  There  is  no  half 
educated  man  who  believes  the  Bible  in  that  wholesale 
way.  1^0  man  can  make  such  profession  sincerely  unless 
he  has  escaped  education  altogether.  Men  who  say  such 
things  are  talking  buncombe,  playing  to  the  galleries. 

There  are  few  people  of  any  age  or  any  schooling  who 
have  read  their  Bibles  with  any  degree  of  intelligence  or 
care,  without  finding  statements  that  have  perplexed  them, 
and  in  some  parts  ethics  that  have  astonished  and  re- 
volted them,  as  well  as  contradictions  and  inconsistencies 
that  they  could  neither  deny  nor  explain.  Only  an  inher- 
ited reverence  for  the  Book,  or,  better  still,  personal  experi- 


PROLEGOMENA  XI 11 

ence  of  the  high  spiritual  worth  of  large  portions  of  it, 
have  kept  many  from  refusing  to  read  further.  Others 
may  have  refused  to  read  further  because  of  just  these 
difficulties. 

Those  who  know  how  shallow  and  false  is  this  dogma 
of  Biblical  infallibility,  those  who  have  learned  from 
Christian  history  how  and  why  it  came  to  be  held,  those 
who  know  how  unscrupulous  are  some  of  its  advocates 
and  how  ignorant  others,  those  who  realize  how  it  con- 
tradicts the  hard-won  results  of  Biblical  study  through 
tlie  centuries,  those  who  appreciate  how  damaging  such  a 
dogma  is  to  the  cause  of  true  religion,  how  impossible 
it  is  to  build  an  edifice  of  Truth  on  a  foundation  of  lies — 
these  must  have  the  courage  of  their  knowledge  and  con- 
victions, must  accept  the  challenge  proffered  them,  must 
begin  without  delay,  to  teach  the  plain  Christian  people 
the  trutli  about  the  Bible,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing 
but  the  truth.  If  they  hesitate,  if  they  listen  to  the 
counsels  of  their  timid  and  half-hearted  fellows,  thie 
churches  will  fall  a  prey  to  vociferous  ignorance,  and 
true  religion  will  be  betrayed  in  the  house  of  its  friends. 
The  path  of  boldness,  of  utter  frankness,  of  rugged  hon- 
esty,  is  the  path  of  safety. 

Ill 

Many  of  the  clergy,  who  have  been  adequately  in- 
structed in  a  good  modern  theological  seminary,  and  con- 
sequently know  the  facts  about  the  Bible,  are  afraid  to 
take  their  people  into  their  confidence  and  tell  them  the 
truth.  Some  fear  that  if  they  should  tell  the  truth,  their 
y)eople  would  regard  them  as  heretics  and  turn  against 
them ;  and  they  cannot  bring  themselves  to  quarrel  with 
their  bread  and  butter.  Others  excuse  themselves  from 
the  duty  of  fearless  truth-speaking,  on  the  plausible  plea 
that  the  pulpit  is  no  place  for  discussing  such  matters, 


XIV  PROLEGOMENA 

which  should  be  left  for  class  rooms  and  learned  period- 
icals to  thresh  out.  As  to  this,  it  may  be  said  that  of 
course  it  would  be  unwise  to  carry  into  the  pulpit  tech- 
nical discussions,  and  expect  the  ordinary  congregation 
to  act  as  a  jury  and  decide  questions  about  which  com- 
petent scholars  differ. 

But  this  is  not  at  all  what  is  meant  by  telling  people 
tlie  truth  about  the  Bible.  There  is  no  important  truth 
about  religion  that  cannot  be  made  clear  to  the  ordinary 
believer.  'No  one  who  has  had  experience  in  teaching  in 
a  Sunday  school  doubts  that  even  minds  of  children 
are  capable  of  taking  in  any  important  truth,  when  a 
properly  trained  teacher  puts  it  before  them.  The  aver- 
age Christian  congi'egation  is  fully  competent  to  under- 
stand the  general  results  that  have  been  reached,  within 
the  last  century  especially,  by  historical,  exegetical  and 
literary  study  of  the  Bible.  The  results  can  be  stated 
in  untechnical  languac:e  that  the  reader  of  any  daily 
newspaper  will  comprehend  without  undue  mental  effort. 
And  every  preacher,  when  he  takes  a  text  of  Scripture  as 
subject  of  his  discourse,  or  even  as  a  mere  motto,  by  so 
doing  attests  the  traditional  theory  of  his  office:  that  his 
chief  function  is  to  expound  the  Scriptures  to  his  people. 
How  shall  he  honestly  discharge  this  function,  while  he 
leaves  them  in  ignorance  of  fundamental  truth  about 
the  Bible  ?  Truth  that  it  much  imports  them  to  know, 
truth  that  would  greatly  alter  their  way  of  looking  at 
all  other  religious  truth,  truth  so  vitally  important  that 
if  they  remain  ignorant  of  it  they  cannot  be  intelligent 
Oliristians?  There  can  be  no  excuse  for  such  dereliction 
of  dnty  that  will  stand  slightest  examination. 

At  the  present  moment  no  duty  makes  a  more  imperious 
call  on  the  Christian  minister  than  the  duty  of  telling  his 
people  all  the  truth  about  the  Bible.  Claiiiis  have  been 
made  for  the  Bible,  and  are  now  made  with  fresh  insist- 
ence, that  the  Bible  floe^  not  make  for  itself.     The  vnli<l- 


PROLEGOMENA  XV 

ity  of  the  Christian  religion  is  staked  by  many  noisy 
champions  of  it  on  impossible  theories  of  the  Bible's 
origin,  meaning  and  authority.  If  those  who  know  this, 
and  also  know  what  is  the  truth,  preserve  a  prudent  silence, 
how  shall  they  excuse  themselves  for  their  failure  to 
speak  out  ? 

Oh,  but  they  fear  they  may  unsettle  men's  minds  and 
wreck  the  faith  of  some  of  Christ's  little  ones,  if  they 
should  speak!  That  is  a  coward's  plea.  'No  man's  faith 
was  ever  wrecked  by  truth,  who  had  a  faith  worth  saving. 
One  lacks  trust  in  God,  the  author  of  all  truth,  who  fears 
to  speak  it.  It  was  our  Lord  himself  who  assured  us 
^The  truth  w^ill  make  you  free" — falsehood  can  make  only 
slaves  and  dastards.  Speak,  my  brothers  in  the  min- 
istry of  the  grace  of  God ;  speak,  as  you  are  called  to  be 
GocFs  prophets;  speak  the  truth  without  dilution  or 
camouflage ;  and  with  God  be  the  rest ! 

IV 

What,  then,  should  the  people  be  taught  about  the 
Bible?  They  should  be  taught  first  of  all  its  proper  place 
in  the  Christian  religion  and  w^arned  against  a  cheap  and 
harmful,  even  a  superstitious,  bibliolatry.  Christianity 
and  Mohammedanism  are  often  said  to  be  alike  in  this, 
that  both  are  religions  of  a  Book.  This  is  far  from  the 
truth.  Mohammedanism  may  be  the  religion  of  a  Book; 
Christianity  is  the  religion  of  a  Person.  Jesus  the  Christ 
is  its  corner-stone,  not  the  Bible;  Tie,  not  it,  is  the  "author 
and  perfecter  of  our  faith."  With  Paul,  every  believer 
says,  "I  know  whom  I  have  believed" — whom,  not  what. 
Once  let  people  get  it  firmly  into  their  minds  that  the 
essence  of  the  Christian  religion  is  a  personal  experience 
of  God's  love,  through  Jesus  who  has  revealed  him  to  us 
as  our  Father  in  Heaven,  and  their  faith  will  be  built  on 
a  Rock  and  nothing  thenceforth  can  shake  it.  Until  they 
have  this  experience  and  coTuprohend  its  significance,  they 


XVI  PliOLEGOMENA 

are  at  the  mercy  of  every  wind  of  doctrine  that  blows. 
^'The  Bible,  and  the  Bible  only  the  religion  of  Protestants" 
was  never  true,  and  it  has  lost  what  semblance  of  truth  it 
might  have  had  when  Chillingworth  said  it. 

Sfext  to  this,  people  should  be  taught  that  the  authority 
of  the  Bible  does  not  depend  on  men's  theories  and  doc- 
trines about  the  Bible.  The  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  a 
fact,  not  a  dogma.  A  hundred  generations  have  been 
finding  in  it  something  unique  in  spiritual  quality.  ]^o- 
where  else  have  they  been  able  to  discover  such  light  and 
life,  such  comfort  and  strength  and  peace.  For  centuries 
men  have  resorted  to  it  for  sorely  needed  help  in  their 
struggle  to  escape  from  sin  and  attain  goodness,  and 
have  had  their  spiritual  energies  renewed  and  their 
wills  braced  for  further  contest.  The  authority  of  the 
Bible  does  not  depend  on  what  ecclesiastical  Powers  have 
decreed,  or  on  what  theologians  may  have  taught  about 
it,  but  on  what  it  is.  It  authenticates  itself  as  God's 
word  to  the  soul  that  is  reaching  out  after  the  Most  High, 
as  a  father's  call  in  the  dark  authenticates  itself  to  a 
frightened  child.  In  the  Bible  we  hear  and  recognize  our 
Heavenly  Father's  voice  and  our  spirits  joyfully  respond. 
This  is  the  fact  of  inspiration — a  personal  experience  of 
the  highest  validity,  which  is  totally  unaffected  by  this 
theory  or  that  about  the  Bible.  What  matters  it  to  us 
who  wrote  the  various  books,  or  how,  or  when,  or  why, 
if  we  thus  recognize  in  them  the  voice  of  our  God? 

People  should  be  taught  the  facts  about  the  liistoricjil 
origin  of  the  Bible.  They  should  learn  that  the  Bible  is 
not  one  book,  but  two  separate  collections  of  books — 
not  one  book,  but  a  library.  The  very  name  embodies 
this  historic  fact;  it  was  originally  xd  Pi6?iia,  the 
books,  or,  as  we  so  often  say,  the  Scriptures.  These  two 
collections  are  the  best  of  the  surviving  writings  of  an 
extraordinary  race  during  more  than  a  thousand  years. 
They  contain,  as  we  might  expect,  many  different  types 


PROLEGOMENA  XVU 

of  literature:  history,  drama,  lyric  poetry,  orations,  es- 
says, apothegms.  Books  whose  composition  extends  over 
a  thousand  years,  and  that  touch  men's  lives  at  so  many 
points,  could  hardly  fail  to  be  of  different  degrees  of 
value,  according  to  the  intelligence  and  spiritual  insight 
of  their  authors.  Ten  centuries  must  show  progress  in 
religions  ideas — or  else  retrogression;  in  any  event,  change. 
That  apparently  innocent  mutation  of  name  from  bibles 
to  Bible,  has  done  much  to  encourage  the  unhistorical 
notion  of  One  Book,  entirely  homogeneous  in  character 
and  contents,  coming  perfect  from  the  mind  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  without  admixture  of  error,  every  part  necessarily 
the  equal  of  every  other  part,  and  teaching  the  same  ideas 
of  God  and  man  from  earliest  composition  to  latest.  This 
notion  about  the  Bible,  which  may  be  called  the  popular 
theory,  is  such  a  perversion  of  facts  lying  on  the  very 
surface  of  the  writings,  that  any  person  of  intelligence 
and  education  ought  to  be  heartily  ashamed  of  being  its 
advocate  or  defender. 

People  should  be  taught  that  the  making  of  these  two 
collections  was  a  slow  process,  and  that  the  result  was 
long  in  doubt.  The  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and 
for  long  after,  were  not  agreed  as  to  what  books  should 
be  admitted  to  and  what  excluded  from  their  sacred  writ- 
ings. Ten  generations  of  Christians  lived  and  died  before 
our  'New  Testament  assumed  its  present  form.  What  was 
tlie  determining  principle  in  the  formation  of  the  two 
canons?  Study  of  the  facts  discloses  a  common  prin- 
ciple in  the  making  of  both:  a  winnowing  process  grad- 
ually separated  the  present  books  of  the  Bible  from  a 
much  larger  collection  of  similar  books,  because  these 
were  found,  in  the  religious  experience  of  successive  gen- 
erations, to  have  a  superior  spiritual  quality.  After  vir- 
tual unanimity  had  been  thus  arrived  at,  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority formally  decreed  that  these  books  and  no  others 
should  thenceforth  be  regarded  as  Holy  Scripture.     The 


XVlll  PROLEGOMENA 

Bible  is  thus  one  of  the  most  striking  illustrations  in 
history  of  the  law  of  survival  of  the  fittest.  The  experi- 
ence that  made  the  Bible  a  whole  has  kept  it  such  to 
this  day. 

People  should  be  taught  that,  while  infallibility  of  the 
Bible  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Koman  Catholic  Church,*  it 
has  never  been  the  official  Protestant  doctrine.  Infalli- 
bility of  the  Bible  has  been  so  strenuously  advocated  by 
some  Protestant  theologians,  however,  and  accepted  by  so 
considerable  a  part  of  clergy  and  laity,  that  it  may  be 
called  unofficial  Protestant  doctrine,  but  it  has  never  been 
declared  in  any  Protestant  creed  or  confession  of  faith. 
What  has  been  the  result  of  this  attempt  to  make  this 
doctrine  Protestant  orthodoxy?  For  several  generations 
the  clergy  have  been  influenced  by  every  bribe  this  world 
can  offer — hope,  honors,  wealth,  social  consideration — and 
by  every  threat  this  world  can  devise — disgrace,  persecu- 
tion, stripes,  chains,  death — to  maintain  the  infallible 
correctness  of  every  word  contained  in  the  Bible ;  and  as  a 
net  result  faith  in  the  Bible  has  been  steadily  weakening. 
Is  it  not  about  time  to  try  another  policy? 

V 

It  is  an  extraordinary  fact,  yet  fact  indubitable,  that 
the  very  persons  who  make  loudest  professions  of  belief 
in  the  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  and  insist 
most  strenuously  on  the  reverent  treatment  of  the  book, 
are  the  very  persons  who  treat  the  Bible  with  least  rev- 
erence.    Thev  show  their  faith  bv  their  works  less  than 


*"For  all  the  books  that  the  Church  receives  as  sacred  and  can- 
onical are  written  wholly  and  entirely,  with  all  their  parts,  at  the 
dictation  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  so  far  is  it  from  being  possible 
that  any  error  can  coexist  with  inspiration,  that  inspiration  not 
only  is  incompatible  with  error,  but  excludes  and  rejects  it  as  abso- 
lutely and  necessarily,  as  it  is  impossible  that  God  himself,  the 
supreme  Truth,  can  utter  that  which  is  not  true."  Encyclical 
Proimlrntissirnvs  Dcus,  of  Pope  Leo  XIII,  November  18,  1893. 


PROLEGOMENA  XIX 

any  other  Christians.  The  men  now  posing  before  the 
public  as  the  special  champions  of  the  Bible  and  almost 
the  sole  defenders  of  its  authority,  are  nearly  all  Pre- 
millennarians.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  speedy  coming 
of  the  Son  of  INfan  to  reign  with  his  saints  a  thousand 
years  can  be  made  to  appear  a  doctrine  derived  from 
the  Bible  only  by  the  most  careless,  not  to  say  dishonest, 
exegesis.  Under  pretext  of  extreme  devotion  to  the  Bible, 
Premillennarians  distort  and  falsify  the  Bible  in  the  most 
barefaced  manner.  Therefore,  people  should  be  taught 
the  truth,  namely,  that  there  is  no  teaching  in  the  Bible 
about  a  millennium  in  connection  w4th  the  second  coming 
of  Christ.  There  is  not  so  much  as  a  hint  of  such 
doctrine.  Premillennial  doctrine  is  a  manufacture  ^^out 
of  whole  cloth"  of  a  doctrine  that  has  not  the  slightest 
support  in  the  Bible. 

There  is  but  a  single  passage,  a  very  brief  one,  in 
the  whole  Bible  that  speaks  of  a  reign  of  Christ  for  a 
thousand  years.  That  passage  is  in  the  Revelation,  a  book 
of  impassioned  poetry,  of  profuse  symbolism,  the  inter- 
pretation of  which  has  caused  more  difference  of  opinion 
iunong  Christian  scholars  for  centuries  than  any  other 
part  of  the  Bible.     Here  are  the  words: 

And  I  saw  thrones,  and  they  sat  on  them. 

And  authority  to  judge  was  given  them. 

And  I  saw  the  souls  of  those  who  had  been  beheaded  bo- 
cause  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus  and  tlic  word  of  God, 

And  whosoever  did  not  pay  homage  to  the  Beast  nor  his 
image, 

And  received  not  tlic  mark  upon  their  foreheads  and 
upon  their  hand; 

And  they  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  years. 

The  rest  of  the  dead  did  not  live  till  the  thousand  years 
were  completed. 

Several  things  are  distinctly  stated  in  this  vision:  it 
is  before  the  general  resurrection,  and  the  reign  of  Christ 


XX  PROLEGOMENA 

is  witli  a  strictly  limited  portion  of  his  saints:  such  as 
had  lost  their  lives  in  a  great  persecution,  and  such  others 
as  had  refused  to  do  homage  to  the  Beast,  However 
the  vision  may  be  interpreted,  these  limitations  cannot  be 
disregarded.  The  persecution  in  the  writer's  mind  may 
have  been  that  under  I^ero,  or  that  under  Domitian,  or 
some  other.  This  is  a  question  of  little  importance, 
because  in  any  persecution  in  the  Roman  Empire  a  great 
part,  probably  the  greater  part,  of  the  Christians  were 
not  molested  at  all.  Many  who  were  arrested,  and  openly 
avowed  their  faith,  and  steadfastly  refused  to  sacrifice 
to  the  gods  or  the  Emperor,  were  subsequently  released 
when  the  fervor  of  persecution  declined;  others  were  put 
to  death.  Only  these  two  classes,  the  martyrs  and  the 
confessors,  are  seen  by  John  as  sharing  with  the  Lord 
this  millennial  reign.  And  this  is  absolutely  the  only 
reference  in  the  whole  Bible  to  a  reign  of  Christ  of  a 
thousand  years.  Hence,  the  statement  above  that  the 
Bible  does  not  contain  a  doctrine  of  the  reign  of  Christ 
with  all  his  saints  for  a  thousand  years — which  is  the 
'^millennial"  doctrine — is  not  only  warranted  but  com- 
pelled by  the  facts. 

How  then  do  the  Premillennarians,  with  their  loudly 
proclaimed  devotion  to  the  Bible,  contrive  to  make  their 
self-invented  doctrine  appear  to  be  the  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture? Why,  very  simply.  They  first  read  the  doctrine 
into  the  Bible  and  then  read  it  out  again.  They  quietly 
assume,  to  begin  with,  that  this  passage  in  the  Revela- 
tion teaches  a  reig-n  of  Christ  with  all  his  saints,  instead 
of  with  some. — a  meaning  that,  as  we  have  seen,  the  text 
will  not  bear.  Then  they  combine  with  this  perverted 
passage  all  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  have  said  about  the 
second  coming  of  Christ;  and  all  that  Hebrew  prophets 
have  said  about  Messiah's  kingdom;  and  anything  else 
anywhere  in  the  Bible  that  their  ingenuity  can  bend  to 
their  use.     And  out  of  this  hodge-podge  of  unrelated  texts, 


PROLEGOMENA  XXL 

wirested  violently  from  their  connection,  and  made  to 
bear  meanings  of  which  their  authors  never  dreamed,  they 
make  a  doctrine  of  the  millenninm.  And  they  have  the 
colossal  impudence  to  call  this  doctrine  Scriptural ! 

This  method  Premillennarians  fatuously  suppose  is 
showing  o-reat  reverence  for  the  Bible !  And  the  men  who 
do  this,  cap  their  lying  exegetics  with  a  charge  of  heresy 
against  all  who  refuse  to  interpret  the  Bible  in  this  scan- 
dalous fashion.  For  it  is  really  nothing  less  than  a  scan- 
dal, a  great  scandal  and  outrage,  against  which  those 
who  truly  love  and  reverence  the  Bible  should  delay  no 
longer  to  make  public  and  emphatic  protest.  The  men 
who  tear  the  Bible  to  bits,  in  order  to  piece  together  a 
crazy-quilt  of  unrelated  texts,  and  publish  this  to  the 
world  as  ^'the  fundamentals  of  Christianity,"  must  not 
be  suffered  a  day  longer  to  pose  as  the  champions  of 
the  Bible,  the  only  Christians  who  to-day  are  standing 
between  Holy  Scripture  and  the  forces  of  infidelity. 

It  would  be  a  little  diiferent  if  these  men  possessed 
any  real  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  any  Biblical  scholarship 
worthy  of  respect.  But  it  would  be  difficult  to  single 
out  a  man  in  their  ranks  whose  opinions  on  questions 
of  scholarship  are  respected  by  other  scholars.  Most  of 
the  party  are  men  who  have  either  had  no  theological 
training,  or  have  taken  a  course  in  some  ''Bible  School" 
that  gives  no  instruction  in  the  original  Scriptures.  The 
greater  part  of  their  ''knowledge"  of  the  Bible  is  knowl- 
edge of  things  that  aren't  so.  And,  as  usually  happens, 
their  dogmatic  assurance  is  in  inverse  ratio  to  their  sound 
scholarship.  We  hear  of  the  pride  of  knowledge;  there 
is  such  a  thing,  without  doubt,  but  the  pride  of  knowledge 
is  humility  itself  compared  with  the  pride  of  ignorance. 
God  save  the  Bible  from  some  of  its  professed  friends! 

It  is  strange  indeed  that  men  will  learn  so  little  from 
the  history  of  this  doctrine.  The  records  of  the  Christian 
centuries  may  be  called  a  museum  of  millenniums.     The 


XXI 1  PROLEGOMENA 

millenniuin  has  come — and  gone — more  times  than  one 
can  easily  count.  In  spite  of  our  Lord's  declaration  that 
not  even  the  angels  in  heaven  know  the  hour  of  his 
coming,  deluded  disciples  have  again  and  again  ciphered 
out  the  exact  day  for  the  beginning  of  his  millennial 
reign.  Some  have  learned  enough  from  experience  not 
to  commit  themselves  to  a  specific  date  and  content  them- 
selves with  the  pronouncement  that  the  reign  is  to  begin 
'Very  soon."  Their  cheerful  hardihood  is  not  so  won- 
derful, perhaps,  as  that  there  should  be  found  in  every 
generation  a  multitude  that  no  man  can  number  of  silly 
souls,  incapable  of  receiving  truth  but  avid  of  falsehood, 
always  waiting  anxiously  to  be  hoaxed,  the  predestined 
prey  of  every  crack-brained  fanatic,  credulous  above  all 
regarding  any  error  that  is  proclaimed  with  a  tone  of 
authority  and  made  plausible  by  juggled  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture. The  great  showman  was  right:  one  is  born  every 
minute. 

VI 

One  or  two  personal  words  in  closing  these  prefatory 
remarks:  Attentive  readers  will  not  fail  to  note  that 
some  of  the  words  of  Jesus  are  cited  in  the  following- 
pages  more  than  once;  and  that  certain  ideas  appear  and 
reappear  in  the  discussion,  sometimes  with  no  great  vari- 
ation of  form.  Such  readers,  one  hopes,  will  not  at- 
tribute these  repetitions  to  slovenly  thinking  or  careless 
writing.  There  is  good  reason  (as  the  author  judges) 
for  such  repetitions;  and,  at  any  rate,  each  case  has  been 
carefully  considered,  and  the  text  as  it  stands  represents 
tlie  best  effort  of  which  the  writer  is  capable  to  convey 
his  thought  to  others.  He  may  have  failed  in  judgment, 
but  he  protests  that  he  has  not  failed  in  labor.  The  entire 
book  has  been  rewritten  thrice,  and  much  of  it  a  fourth 
time,  in  the  attempt  to  achieve  clarity  and  brevity. 


PROLEGOMENA  XXI 11 

The  author  has  not  the  slightest  claim  to  speak  for 
the  theological  schools,  beyond  the  fact  that  he  has  been 
a  teacher  in  one  of  them  for  more  than  a  quarter-century. 
He  makes  no  pretense  of  being  their  official  spokesman, 
nor  should  they  be  held  responsible  for  anything  herein 
said.  The  notions  here  expressed  are  probably  more 
radical  than  seminaries  are  prepared  to  avow.  The  author 
is  fairly  certain  that  one  at  least  of  his  own  colleagues 
would  repudiate  a  considerable  part  of  the  book,  and  it 
is  doubtful  if  a  single  one  would  approve  the  whole  of  it. 
But  whatever  they  may  think  of  this  performance,  the 
seminaries  stand  for  modern  scholarship,  for  fearless  in- 
quiry, for  candid  discussion.  They  hold  that  a  Christian's 
attitude  toward  religion  and  church  should  be  expressed 
by  the  maxim  of  Decatur — with  a  difference.  "My  coun- 
try! May  she  ever  be  right,  but,  right  or  wrong,  my 
countrv^!"  was  that  gallant  sailor's  celebrated  toast.  The 
Christian's  watchword  is,  "My  religion  and  my  Church! 
if  right,  to  keep  them  right;  if  wrong,  to  make  them 
right."  It  is  wholly  in  that  spirit  that  the  chapters  fol- 
lowing have  been  written. 


THE 
FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

A  Study  of  the  Teaching  of  Jesus  and  Paul 


CHAPTER  I 
JESUS  THE  PEASANT-POET  OF  GALILEE 


Jesus  wrote  nothing.  He  was  content  to  follow  the 
method  traditional  among  his  people,  the  method  of  oral 
instruction  to  a  few  disciples,  varied  by  occasional  dis- 
courses to  larger  assemblies,  fearlessly  hazarding  his  golden 
precepts  upon  the  memories  of  his  hearers.  In  this  he 
was  by  no  means  unique.  Of  the  world's  paramount 
religious  teachers,  Siddhartha,  Zoroaster  and  Socrates  also 
left  their  disciples  to  gather  up  and  commit  to  writing 
the  m.axims  of  their  Masters.  Only  Confucius  and  Mo- 
hammed left  behind  them  a  written  word  for  which  tliey 
were  personally  responsible. 

We  do  not  know,  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  if  this  method 
was  matter  of  choice  or  of  necessity.  He  may  have  been 
unable  to  write,  as  Mohammed  seems  to  have  been.  The 
incident  of  the  Pericope,  where  he  is  described  as  writing 
on  the  ground(')  is  indecisive,  for  he  may  only  have  ap- 
peared to  spectators  to  be  writing  words:  and  it  is  not  in 
harmony  with  another  passage  of  undoubted  genuineness 
in  the  same  Gospel,  ''How  does  this  fellow  know  letters, 

(^)  John  8:6,  8.  But  the  entire  Pericope  (John  7:53-8:11)  is 
now  rccognizpd  as  an  interpolation  in  this  Gospel  of  an  ineideni 
doubtless  true,  but  belonging  originally  to  some  other  book.  This 
makes  such  a  detail  of  the  story  as  the  alleged  writing  of  Jesus  less 
convincing.  By  a  decision  of  the  Holy  Office,  February  13,  1897, 
confirmed  two  days  later  by  the  Pope,  Catholic  exegetes  are  required 
to  believe  that  the  Pericope  is  genuine  and  an  integral  part  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel. 


2  FUNDAMENTALS    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

having  never  learned ?"(')  It  is  true  that  'letters" 
YQCcupora  may  not  be  used  here  in  the  classic  Greek 
sense  of  '^rudiments/'  for  we  know  from  Josephus  that 
it  was  a  common  word  for  "sacred  learning."  The  only 
literature  to  a  Jew  was  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
But  the  speakers  at  least  intended  to  suggest  that  Jesus 
had  been  trained  in  no  rabbinic  school  and  we  believed 
therefore  to  be  practically  illiterate. 

The  frequent  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  sayings  of  Jesus  have  often  been  cited  as  evidencing 
a  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  sacred  writings  of  his 
people,  so  thorough  as  to  presuppose  both  ability  to  read 
and  much  study.  But  a  critical  weighing  of  those  quota- 
tions fairly  warrants  us  in  inferring  only  that  Jesus  at- 
tended regularly  the  synagogue,  and  perhaps  a  synagogue 
school  at  ^Nazareth,  and  that  he  had  a  good  memory.  He 
presumably  received  the  usual  instruction  of  a  Galilean 
youth  of  his  day,  but  just  what  that  was  we  do  not  know. 
That  it  included  oral  instruction  in  the  Law  is  as  certain 
as  it  is  uncertain  whether  it  included  anything  else. 
Galilee  of  the  year  1  A.  D.  was  as  much  gentile  as  Jew- 
ish, and  the  common  language  of  gentile  Galilee  was 
Greek;  but  what  opportunities  a  youth  like  Jesus  would 
have  of  acquiring  a  speaking  knowledge  of  Greek  is 
matter,  not  of  evidence,  but  of  unprofitable  speculation. 
Even  if  Jesus  spoke  any  language  other  than  the  vernac- 
ular of  Galilee,  that  he  was  acquainted  Avith  any  literature 
but  that  of  his  own  people  is  most  improbable.     No  re- 

O  John  7:15.  Those  who  accept  the  story  of  Luke  4:16-30  as 
entirely  historical  cannot  well  deny  the  ability  of  Jesus  to  read  the 
Hebrew  rolls  of  the  synafjoj^nie.  Many  have  pointed  out  that  it  was 
already  in  his  time  cstoonied  a  religiou-T  duty  to  teach  every  Jewish 
child  to  read  the  Law.  The  boast  of  Josephus  is  well  known: 
"If  anyone  asked  one  of  his  nation  a  question  respecting  the  Law,  he 
could  answer  it  more  readily  than  give  his  own  name ;  for  he  learns 
every  part  of  it  from  the  first  dawn  of  intelligence,  till  it  is  graven 
into  his  very  soul."  C.  Apion,  ii  18.  But  this  may  mean  memoriter 
instruction,  not  learning  to  read. 


JESUS    THE    PEASANT-POET    OF    GALILEE  O 

ligioiis  teacher  ever  owed  less  to  instruction,  we  may 
safely  conclude,  or  was  more  utterly  thrown  back  upon 
himself  for  his  religious  ideas.  Therefore,  of  all  choice 
spirits  of  the  past  to  whom  wo  of  the  present  look  for 
light  and  leading,  Jesus  was  most  original.  His  schooling 
was  of  the  slightest ;  God  and  nature  were  his  teachers ; 
and  he  became  deeply  learned  in  the  lore  of  sky  and 
field  and  flower,  not  in  the  lore  of  books. 

In  the  case  of  any  teacher  who  pursues  the  oral  method 
exclusively,  whose  words  are  for  an  indefinite  period 
handed  on  from  lip  to  lip,  and  not  published  for  a  gen- 
eration or  more  after  his  death,  it  becomes  a  question  as 
inevitable  as  it  is  serious.  How  nearly  do  these  reports 
of  his  teaching  correspond  to  his  actual  words  ?  How  far 
were  these  misunderstood  by  those  who  heard,  distorted 
by  memory  and  travestied  by  tradition,  before  they  wer^^ 
committed  to  writing  ?  How  many  recensions  of  the  words 
of  Jesus  have  we,  and  just  what  authority  is  to  be  at- 
tributed to  each?  What  proportion  of  the  sayings  truly 
represent  his  own  personality,  and  what  should  be  cred- 
ited to  the  personalities  of  the  various  reporters? 

The  doctrine  of  inspiration  grew  up  in  the  second 
century  largely  to  answer  these  questions.  Its  aim  was 
to  give  unequivocal  assurance  to  Christians  that  the  Gos- 
pels were  at  once  authentic  and  authoritative.  This  met 
the  difficulty  for  the  time,  and  for  some  centuries  there 
was  no  questioning  of  the  authenticity  of  the  words  of 
Jesus,  save  on  the  part  of  a  few  bold  spirits  that  from 
lime  to  time  questioned  eveiything,  and  mostly  got  them- 
selves burned  for  their  enterprise.  But  when,  during 
the  Renaissance,  the  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Hebrew 
was  revived,  and  critical  study  of  the  original  Scriptures 
began  anew,  the  doubts  and  questionings  reappeared.  It 
was  noted  that  not  one  of  the  Gospels  givea  tlie  slightest 
hint  that  its   author  supposed   himself  to  have  received 


4  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

any  unusual,  not  to  sav  supernatural,  assistance  in  the 
composition  of  his  book;  while  the  author  of  the  third 
Gospel  distinctly  claims  to  have  made  use  of  the  ordinary 
methods  of  research  employed  by  other  historians,  in 
order  to  discover  the  facts  and  set  them  forth  in  fuller 
and  better  fonn  than  his  predecessors. 

The  great  leaders  of  the  Reformation  were  not  without 
some  comprehension  of  facts  like  these.  Erasmus,  Luther 
and  Calvin,  differing  about  almost  everything  else,  were 
agreed  in  doubting  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  some 
books  of  the  'Nev^  Testament  canon.  But  this  first  ten- 
dency towards  a  free  handling  of  the  ^ew  Testament 
documents  was  quickly  checked  by  the  controversial  ne- 
cessity, which  all  Protestants  realized,  of  having  an 
infallible  Bible  to  cite  in  opposition  to  an  infallible 
Churcb.  The  result  was  a  tightening  of  the  doctrine 
of  inspiration,  an  assertion  by  Protestants  generally  of  a 
more  extreme  view  of  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture  than 
had  ever  been  held  by  the  Roman  Church. 

But  it  was  perceived  after  a  little  that  this  was  but  a 
falsidic  solution — that  a  doctrine  of  the  verbal  inspira- 
tion of  the  'New  Testament  made  the  difficulties  much 
worse  than  they  were  before  the  doctrine  was  promul- 
gated. There  were  patent  and  grave  differences  between 
the  discourses  of  Jesus  as  reported  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
and  those  of  the  other  three,  the  so-called  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels— differences  that  might  perhaps  be  successfully  ac- 
counted for,  but  that  in  any  case  demanded  explanation. 
]>\'ot  only  so,  but  the  same  discourse  was  often  variously 
reported  in  the  Synoptics.  True,  these  variations  did 
not  often  affect  the  substance  of  a  discourse,  but  they 
often  did  affect  the  form  much ;  and  sometimes  form  is 
important,  not  seldom  it  is  vital.  For  example,  take  the 
two  versions  of  the  Beatitudes.  Luke  gives  them  as 
follows : 


JESUS    THE    PEASANT-POET    OF    GALILEE  5 

Happy  you  poor ! 

For  yours  is  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
Happy  you  that  hunger  now ! 

For  you  will  be  satisfied. 
Happy  you  that  weep  now  ! 

For  you  will  laugh. 
Happy  you  when  men  hate  you. 

And  expel  you,  and  insult  you, 

And  reject  your  Name  as  an  evil  thing, 

On  account  of  the  Son  of  Man! 
Eejoice  at  such  time  and  leap  for  joy. 

For  see !  great  is  your  reward  in  Heaven. 
For  in  that  same  way  their  fathers  used  to  treat  the 

Prophets.  (^) 

That  is  the  address  of  the  prophet  of  the  proletariat 
to  the  toiling  and  hopeless  masses,  holding  out  to  them 
the  prospect  of  an  immediate  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  in  which  existing  inequalities  and  injustices  will 
be  righted.  It  was  such  words  as  these  that  gave  un- 
pardonable offence  to  the  vested  wrongs  of  his  day,  and 
led  the  corrupt  interests  to  demand  the  death  of  Jesus. 
And  in  the  Gospel  bearing  Matthew's  name,  published 
in  the  second  generation  after  the  crucifixion,  these  Beati- 
tudes assume  this  fonn : 

Happy  the  poor  in  spirit ! 

For  theirs  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 
Happy  they  that  mourn ! 

For  they  will  be  comforted. 
Happy  the  meek ! 

For  they  will  inherit  the  earth. 
Happy  they  that  hunger  after  righteousness ! 

For  they  will  be  satisfied. 
Happy  the  merciful ! 

For  they  will  obtain  mercy. 
Happy  the  sincere  in  heart! 

For  they  will  see  God. 


(M   T-uke  6:20-2.'» 


6  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

Happy  the  peacemakers! 

For  they  will  be  called  sons  of  God. 

Happy  they  that  have  been  persecuted  for  righteousness' 
sake, 
For  theirs  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

Happy  are  you  when  they  reproach  you  and  persecute  you, 
And  say  all  evil  against  you,  for  my  sake ; 
Rejoice  and  be  exceedingly  glad, 
Because  great  is  your  reward  in  Heaven, 
For  so  persecuted  they  the  Prophets  that  were  before 
you.(^) 

The  four  Beatitudes  of  Luke  have  been  expanded  into 
nine  (really  but  eight,  for  the  ninth  is  but  a  repetition 
of  the  eighth)  but  this  is  not  the  most  significant  change: 
the  proletarian  element  has  been  spiritualized  away,  and 
the  promises  for  this  world  have  been  given  an  otherworld- 
ly application.  The  two  versions  of  the  Beatitudes  are 
therefore  as  different  in  substance  as  they  are  in  form. 
Which  did  Jesus  actually  teach?  That  he  taught  both 
can  be  believed  only  by  a  mind  utterly  flaccid  and  un- 
critical, by  those  persons  who  have  retained  the  naive 
habit  of  childhood,  of  receiving  as  true  anything  that 
may  be  told  them. 

It  will  help  us  to  decide  this  question,  if  Ave  turn 
again  to  Luke  and  read  the  converse  teaching  there  at- 
tributed  to  Jesus,  the  Woes  that  follow  the  Beatitudes: 

But  woe  to  you  rich ! 

For  you  have  received  your  consolation. 
Woe  to  you  who  are  satisfiecl    now  1 

For  you  will  hunger. 
Woe  to  you  that  laugh  now ! 

For  you  will  mourn  and  weep. 
Woe  to  you  when  all  men  speak  well  of  you  ! 

For  in  that  same  way  their  fathers  used  to  treat  the  false 
prophets.  (') 

(»)   Matt.  5:3-12. 
(')    Luke   6:24-26. 


JKSLS   THE   PEASANT-rOET    OF   GALILEE  i 

The  entire  suppression  of  this  passage  by  Matthew 
constitutes  a  more  serious  discrepancy  tha6  his  altera- 
tion of  the  Beatitudes.  These  ^'Woes"  could  by  no  in- 
genuity be  softened  down  and  spiritualized  as  were  the 
Beatitudes,  and  so  the  composer  of  the  first  Gospel  dealt 
with  his  problem  in  the  obvious  way,  by  omitting  the 
inconvenient  teachings.  Critical  study  has  established 
that  this  is  true,  rather  than  the  alternative  that  Luke 
composed  and  added  the  ^'Woes,"  by  making  it  evident 
that  the  authors  of  the  first  and  third  Gospels  used  the 
same  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  as  their  chief 
authority  for  his  discourses.  Before  the  first  century 
had  closed,  we  thus  see  the  process  well  begun  of  trim- 
ming down  and  smoothing  over  the  words  of  Jesus,  to 
make  them  more  palatable  to  the  new  generation  of 
Christians.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  we 
liave  in  Luke's  version,  if  not  the  exact  words  of  Jesus, 
at  least  a  much  closer  approximation  to  them  than  is 
given  by  Matthew. 

It  is  quite  certain,  therefore,  that  we  cannot  receive 
as  the  indubitable  words  of  Jesus  everything  attributed 
to  him  in  the  Gospels.  We  have  as  yet  got  little  further 
than  recognition  of  this  fact  by  a  fraction  of  the  Chris- 
tian world,  the  greater  part  still  refusing  to  admit  that 
this  is  fact.  The  critical  study  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus 
that  will  give  measurably  assured-  results  is  only  well 
begim,  and  therefore  such  appreciation  as  is  here  at- 
tempted must  be  more  or  less  tentative  and  experimental. 
Much  of  Avhat  has  purported  to  be  critical  study,  by 
German  scholars  especially,  is  invalidated  by  lack  of 
spiritual  insight,  by  false  philosophical  assumptions  and 
by  adoption  of  a  pseudo-scientific  method. 

Of  these  defects  the  first  is  gravest.  A  large  part  of 
the  sayings  of  Jesus  were  received  as  authoritative  by  his 
original  hearers,  because  of  their  resistless  appeal  to  the 
religious  consciousness;  and  that  they  still  make  the  same 


8  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

appeal  is  the  best  proof  we  could  have  of  their  authenticity. 
The  words  are  self -evidencing.  iJ^obody  else  could  possibly 
have  uttered  them.  There  is  not  another  man  of  that 
generation,  or  of  the  generation  following,  whom  we  have 
the  slightest  ground  for  investing  with  the  peculiar  spir- 
itual quality  that  these  words  disclose.  To  suppose  them 
the  invention  of  any  disciple,  or  the  gradual  accretion  of 
the  religious  thinking  of  many,  is  equally  preposterous. 
Disciples  of  Jesus  proved  themselves  capable  of  denaturing 
his  teachings,  but  not  of  originating  them.  And  in  scores 
of  cases  we  may  be  reasonably  confident  that  we  have  the 
exact  form  of  his  words,  for  many  of  his  most  pregnant 
utterances  were  not  so  much  easy  to  remember  as  impos- 
sible to  forget. 

It  is  plain,  however,  that  such  considerations  as  these 
apply  only  to  those  sayings  that  evince  superior  ethical 
and  spiritual  insight.  Discourses  of  the  apocalyptic  type, 
and  sayings  of  an  ecclestiastical  sort,  may  easily  have 
been,  and  probably  were,  the  invention  of  others,  fathered 
on  Jesus  by  a  later  age.  Not  all  the  external  corrobora- 
tion of  texts  and  versions  can  make  credible  some  of  these 
alleged  sayings.  Of  this  character  is  part  of  the  cele- 
brated dialogue  between  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  related 
in  Matt.  1(5:13-19: 

Jesus.  Who  do  people  say  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  ? 

Disciples.     Some  say  John  the  Baptist,  others  Elijah, 

others  Jeremiah,  or  one  of  the  Prophets. 
Jesus.  But  who  do  you  say  that  I  am  ? 

Peter.  You  are  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  Living 

God. 
Jesus.  Happy  are  you  Simon,  son  of  Jonah ! 

For  liesh  and  blood  have  not  revealed  it  to 

you, 
But  my  Father  who  is  in  Heaven. 
[And  I  tell  you,  Yon  are  Peter, 
And  on  this  Rock  T  will  bnild  my  Church, 


JESUS   TJIE   PEASANT-POET    OF   GALILEE  9 

And   the   gates   of   Hades   will   not   prevail 

against  it. 
I  will  give  you  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of 

Heaven ; 
xA.nd  whatever  you  prohibit  in  earth  will  be 

prohibited  in  Heaven, 
And  whatever  you  permit  on  earth  will  be 

permitted  in  Heaven.] 

The  lirst  part  of  this  dialogue  is  probably  authentic,  but 
the  words  enclosed  in  brackets  could  be  authenticated  to  us 
only  by  the  most  positive  direct  testimony.  They  are 
utterly  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  as  his  teaching  in 
general  makes  him  known  to  us.  As  we  shall  see  later, 
there  is  much  wit  and  humor  in  all  the  discourses,  public 
and  private,  but  nowhere  does  Jesus  condescend  to  the 
feeble  punning(^)  that  some  later  ecclesiastical  writer  here 
puts  into  his  mouth.  The  ideas  and  method  of  this  ^'say- 
ing" cannot  be  rationally  supposed  to  have  occurred  to 
anybody  during  the  first  hundred  years  of  Christian  his- 
tory. Only  after  the  tradition  of  Peter's  Roman  episco- 
pate and  primacy  in  the  Church  came  to  be  generally  cir- 
culated and  widely  believed — say  about  the  time  of  Irena>- 
iis — would  such  words  have  had  any  force  or  acceptance. 
Their  interpolation  into  the  first  Gospel  toward  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  or  early  in  the  third,  is  the  most 
plausible  explanation  of  their  presence  in  all  our  earliest 
texts  and  versions.  For  there  is  no  more  question  that 
the  words  are  canonical,  than  that  they  are  not  authentic. 


II 

Many  expounders  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  have  at- 
tempted to  show  that  he  was  philosopher,  theologian,  mor- 
alist, but  he  was  none  of  these — he  was  poet.    The  greater 

C)  ''Leave  the  dead  to  bury  their  own  dead"  (Matt.  8:22)  is 
the  nearest  approach  to  a  pun  in  any  of  the  undoubted  words  of 
Jesus. 


10  I TJKDA]M:E VITALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

part  of  his  instruction  found  expression  in  the  rhythmic 
forms  of  Hebrew  prophets  and  psalmists.  This  is  so  ap- 
parent, even  in  the  Greek  version  in  which  alone  his  say- 
ings have  come  down  to  us,  that  it  is  a  marvel  how  the 
fact  could  have  escaped  notice  for  centuries.  Only  that 
a  supposed  reverence  for  the  words  of  Jesus  prevented 
men  from  studying  them  as  literature  can  account  H-yy 
such  prolonged  failure  of  perception.  Among  men  of 
"serious"  mind  and  '^religious"  temperament  there  used 
to  be,  and  perhaps  still  lingers,  a  scarcely  concealed  di-^- 
trust  and  contempt  of  all  forms  of  artistry.  To  such, 
"poet"  is  little  more  than  synonym  for  "fool."  Men  are 
still  living  who  can  remember  when  reading  of  "Paradise 
Lost"  was  just  tolerated  among  pious  people,  because  the 
poem  had  a  "sacred"  theme.  Even  so,  the  "Pilgrim's 
Progress,"  as  plain  prose,  was  much  more  favored;  while 
to  read  Wordsworth  Avas  to  be  looked  at  askance,  and  to 
read  Byron  or  Shelley  was  to  be  anathema.  People  so 
constituted  would  have  received  almost  with  horror  the 
suggestion  that  Jesus  was  a  poet;  it  would  have  seemed  to 
tliem  near  kin  to  blasphemy. 

And  yet,  how  can  it  be  denied  or  doubted  that  such 
sayings  as  these  have  all  the  characteristics  of  Hebrew 
poetry  ? 

Again,  you  have  heard  tliat  it  was  said  by  the  aiu-ieiits, 

"Thou  shalt  not  swear  falsely. 

But  shalt  perform  to  tlio  Lord  tliiiie  oaths." 
But  1  say  to  you, 

Swear  not  at  all. 
Xot  by  tlio  IToaven, 

For  it  is  God's  throne  : 
Not  by  the  earth, 

For  it  is  the  footstool  of  liis  fori  : 
"N'or  by  Jerusalem, 

For  it  is  tlie  Great  King's  city : 
\or  shall  you  swear  by  your  head. 

For  vou  cannot  niako  one  hair  white  or  black. 


JESUS   THE   PEASANT-POET    OF   GALILEE  11 

But  let  yonr  word  bo  Yes  or  No ; 

What  is  more  than  these  is  of  the  Evil  ()Tie.(^) 

Or  again,  what  could  be  more  nicely  balanced,  after  the 
parallelism   of   the   Hebrew  poetry,   than   these   triplets: 

Ask  and  it  will  be  given  you, 

Seek  and  you  will  find. 

Knock  and  the  door  will  open  to  you. 

For  every  one  that  asks,  receives. 

And  he  that  seeks,  finds, 

And  to  him  that  knocks  the  door  is  opened.  (-) 

The  discourses  of  Jesus  are  not  poetic  in  form  merely ; 
his  style  is  a  poet's.  It  has  the  qualities  of  imagination, 
elegance,  elevation,  repose,  power,  that  we  demand  in  all 
poets  and  find  only  in  the  great.  Equally  at  home  with 
things  high  and  low,  with  themes  homely  and  themes  sul)- 
I  ime,  his  mind  pours  forth  a  rich  variety  of  thought.  And 
his  diction  as  well  repays  study  as  his  thought:  it  is  always 
beautiful  in  its  simplicity,  wholly  without  ornature,  often 
illumined  by  a  delicate  play  of  fancy.  In  the  case  of 
Jesus,  speech  is  perfect  in  adaptation  to  occasion  and  cir- 
cumstance, and  consequently  rich  in  variety  and  charm. 
If  any  doubt  what  has  been  said,  let  him  ask  himself. 
Could  any  but  a  poet  have  spoken  these  words  ? 

Observe  the  lilies,  how  they  grow; 

They  toil  not,  they  spin  not, 
Yet  not  even  Solomon  in  all  liis  splendor 

Was  robed  like  one  of  these. 
Now  if  God  so  clothes  grass, 

Which  to-day  is  in  the  field. 

And  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven, 
How  much  more  you,  men  of  little  trust  I  (•^) 

Speaking  once  more  of  form,  every  attentive  reader  of 
the  Gospels  must  have  noted   sayings  of  Jesus  that  fall 

(M   Matt.  5:33-37. 

(*)   Matt.  7:7,  8. 

("-)    Matt.  0:28-30:   ff.   Luke  12:27,  28. 


12  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

into  the  couplets  of  the  Proverbs,  sententious,  crisp,  pithy, 
argute.     Instances  are: 

He  that  finds  his  life  will  lose  it, 

And  he  that  loses  his  life  for  my  sake  will  find  it.  (^) 

He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me, 

And  he  that  does  not  gather  with  me,  scatters.  (-) 

Every  one  that  exalts  himself  will  be  humbled, 
But  he  that  humbles  himself  will  be  exalted.  (^) 

So  the  last  will  be  first. 
And  the  first,  last.  (*) 

The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man, 
Not  man  for  the  Sabbath.  (•'^) 

What  I  tell  )^ou  in  the  dark,  speak  in  the  light ; 

And  what  you  hear  in  whispers,  shout  on  housetops.  (®) 

I  am  sending  you  out  like  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves, 
So  become  wise  as  serpents  and  guileless  as  doves. (^) 

Because  he  is  poet  and  speaks  in  the  vocabulary  of 
poetry — language  "thrown  out  at  an  idea,"  as  Matthew 
Arnold  calls  it,  not  formal  scientific  definition — it  re- 
quires imagination  to  understand  and  interpret  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  There  is  nothing  fixed  and  stereotyped 
about  his  words ;  they  are  fluid,  almost  volatile ;  ''they  are 
spirit." (^)  This  is  why  his  interpreters  have  in  so  many 
cases  made  a  sad  mess  of  their  work :  they  have  persisted 
in  treating  his  poetry  as  prose,  in  regarding  his  airy  dic- 

n'Matt.  1G:25;  Mk.  8:35;  Luke  9:24;  17-33. 

(2)  Matt.  12:30. 

(8)  Matt.  23:12. 

(*)  Malt.  20:10;  Mk.  10:31:  Luke  13:30. 

(»)  Mk.  2:27. 

C)  Matt.  10:27;  Luke  12:3. 

(•)  Matt.  10:10. 

(«)  Jn.  0:03. 


JESrS   THE    PEASANT-POET    OF    GALILEE  lo 

tion  as  exact  statement  or  accurate  exposition.  And  so 
exegetes  have  made  hay  of  his  delicate  flowers  and  fresh 
grass.  They  have  treated  his  poetic  mirrorings  of  truth 
as  if  he  were  a  mathematician  or  a  professor  of  ethics, 
giving  us  rigid  formulae  or  precise  statement  of  abstract 
principles.  So  to  understand  Jesus  is  to  misunderstand 
him.  So  to  interpret  him  is  to  read  out  of  his  words  all 
life  and  vigor,  and  make  of  them  jejune  and  spiritless 
things. 

Ill 

Tesus  was  not  only  poet,  but  he  was  the  people's  poet.  By 
birth,  breeding  and  deepest  instincts  he  was  the  mouth- 
piece of  the  world's  workers.  Everywhere  we  find  him  the 
Galilean  peasant,  artisan  rather  than  farmer,  none  poorer 
or  more  obscure,  none  knowing  better  the  life  of  those 
who  toil  patiently  and  hard  for  daily  bread.  Sympathy 
with  the  poor  was  the  very  stuff  of  life  in  one  who  spent 
all  his  days  among  them,  shared  their  lot,  gave  his  life  to 
them  and  for  them.  (^)  It  is  true  that  in  his  days  of  public 
ministration,  Jesus  was  patronizingly  invited  to  the  houses 
of  a  few  rich,  since  he  was  the  ^'lion"  of  the  day.  But 
he  was  among  the  rich,  not  of  them.  Sometimes  he  seems 
to  have  been  treated  with  scant  courtesy  by  these  conde- 
scending patrons  of  the  higher  circle,  Avhere  he  was  tol- 
erated at  all  only  because  he  was  reputed  to  be  a  prophet. 
On  one  occasion  he  rather  pointedly  rebuked  his  enter- 
tainer for  failing  in  attentions  that  any  host  was  then 
expected  to  show  a  guest: 

(^)  Jesus  offers  as  one  of  tlie  chief  pi(X)fs  of  his  ]Mef-si:uiie  wuik 
the  fact  that  "the  poor  have  the  Good  News  prochiimed  to  them" 
(Matt.  11:5;  Luke  7:22).  "It  is  a  new  thing:  that  the  poor,  whom 
the  Greek  despised  and  tlie  Roman  trampled  on,  and  whom  the 
priest  and  the  Levite  left  on  one  side,  should  be  invited  into  the 
Kingdom  of  God."     riummer,  Commontury  on   Luke,  p.  203. 


14  FUNDAAIEA^TALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

When  I  came  into  your  house, 
Water  for  m}'  feet  you  gave  me  not. 

But  she  has  bathed  my  feet  with  her  tears, 

And  wiped  them  with  her  hair. 
A  kiss  you  gave  me  not, 
But  she,  ever  since  I  came  in,  lias  not  left  off  tenderly 

kissing  my  feet. 
With  oil  you  did  not  anoint  my  head, 

B.ut  she  with  perfume  has  anointed  my  feet.(^) 

Such  recognition  of  Jesus  by  ^^society"  doubtless  did 
not  at  all  surprise  or  flatter  him,  since  it  was  a  tradition 
of  his  race  that  "the  word  of  Jehovah"  might  come  to  the 
lowliest.  Revelations  from  God  were  no  special  privilege 
of  the  high  and  mighty  among  the  Jews.  Almost  the  re- 
verse had  ever  been  true.  Amos  and  Micah  were  peasants, 
and  probably  Isaiah  also ;  Samuel  was  the  son  of  peasants ; 
Moses  was  a  slave  by  birth,  and  David  was  a  tender  of 
sheep  in  youth.  It  was  quite  in  harmony  with  Jewish 
ideas  and  Jewish  history  that  "the  carpenter's  son"  of 
Nazareth  should  be  prophet  of  God  and  teacher  of  his 
people.  The  chief  reason  why  his  peasant  birth  and  artisan 
training  should  be  emphasized  is  that  they  so  deeply 
colored  every  sentence  that  fell  from  the  lips  of  elesus. 
ISTo  plainer  marks  of  heredity  and  environment  are  found 
in  the  words  of  any  religious  teacher.  He  was  not  ashamed 
to  be  known  as  a  man  of  the  common  people.  Racy  of  the 
soil,  instinct  with  the  spirit  and  life  of  the  Syrian  folk, 
are  all  his  sayings. 

Very  striking  is  the  interest  shown  by  Jesus  in  the 
world  about  him.  His  love  of  nature  was  inborn  and 
deep,  as  we  might  expect  of  a  child  of  the  fields  and  the 
open  air.  His  teaching  is  redolent  of  earth  and  sky.  He 
does  not  seek  painfully  for  illustrations  in  nature,  they 
spring  spontaneously  to  his  lips.  The  peasant-poet  has  an 
infallible  eye  for  the  picturesque  and  dramatic,  and  equally 

C)    Luko   7:44-46. 


JESUS   THE    PEASANT-POET    OF    GALILEE  10 

for  the  homely  event  that  will  send  a  ray  of  light  into  the 
heart  of  some  great  truth  or  so  illumine  a  phase  of  the 
Kingdom  that  the  dullest  will  be  able  to  visualize  it.  With 
sound  instinct  he  avoids  the  besetting  sin  of  so  many 
preachers  and  teachers — he  never  tells  a  story  for  its  own 
j^ake  or  to  ornament  his  discourse ;  his  illustrations  really 
illustrate. 

And  so,  not  a  feature  of  the  Palestinian  landscape,  not  a 
scene  in  the  Palestinian  life,  fails  to  impress  him  and 
sooner  or  later  to  suggest  some  spiritual  application :  moun- 
tain and  plain,  lake  and  river;  the  trees,  sycamine  and  fig, 
good  and  bad,  green  and  dry ;  the  mustard  plant,  growing 
to  be  almost  a  tree ;  the  fields  at  springtime,  as  the  fanner 
plows  and  scatters  seed,  and  anon  white  for  harvest;  the 
grass  flourishing  to-day  and  to-morrow  fuel  for  the  baker ; 
the  lily  in  her  glory  and  the  humbler  herb  of  the  house- 
garden;  the  roads  wandering  whitely  through  the  land, 
some  bordered  by  hedges,  picturesque  and  broad  and  trav- 
eled by  many,  others  narrow  and  steep,  with  thorns  and 
brambles  on  either  hand,  trodden  by  few — even  the  flat 
stones  by  the  wayside  do  not  succeed  in  hiding  from  him ! 

For  the  larger  phenomena  of  nature  Jesus  has  a  vision 
equally  keen  and  comprehensive.  He  lays  tribute  on  all: 
the  splendor  of  the  Oriental  sun  and  the  glory  of  the  un- 
matched Syrian  heavens  by  night;  light  and  darkness, 
summer  and  winter,  seedtime  and  harvest,  growth  of  plant 
and  fruitage  of  tree  and  vine ;  the  varying  qualities  of  soils 
and  the  vexation  of  weeds  among  the  farmer's  crops ;  signs 
of  the  weather,  wind,  rain,  lightning;  natural  disasters, 
flood,  drought,  earthquake,  famine  and  pestilence.  All 
nature  was  to  him  an  open  book,  of  which  he  was  a  most 
attentive  reader. 

Many  of  the  sayings  that  make  good  these  general  re- 
marks will  be  cited  hereafter  for  other  purposes,  so  only 
a  few  examples  can  be  given  here,  but  the  memory  of  every 
Gospel  student  will  supply  nnmbrrloss  others,     ^lark  has 


16  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

preserved  a  unique  parable  that  grew  out  of  this  observa- 
tion of  nature's  ways : 

So  is  the  Kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a  man  should  cast  seed 
on  the  ground, 
And  should  sleep  and  rise  night  and  day, 
And  the  seed  should  spring  up  and  grow,  he  knows 
not  how. 
The  gTOund  bears  fruit  of  itself. 

First  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  ripe  grain  in 
the  ear. 
But  when  the  grain  is  ripe,  he  sends  forth  the  sickle 
at  once. 
Because  the  harvest  is  come.(^) 

One  of  the  most  pungent  reproaches  of  the  Pharisees 
was  inspired  by  ordinary  weather  maxims  of  his  day, 
which  are  those  of  our  day  as  well,  because  they  are 
founded  on  universal  experience: 

In  the  evening  you  say,  "Fair  weather  !" 

For  the  sky  is  red. 
And  in  the  morning,  "Stormy  to-day !" 

For  the  sky  is  red  and  threatening. 
You  know  how  to  judge  the  sky's  appearance, 

But  the  signs  of  the  times  you  cannot  judge. (^) 

Other  representative  instances  are  these : 

As  the  lightning-flash  shines  from  sky  to  sky, 
So  will  be  the  [coming  of  the]  Son  of  Man.(^) 

For  he  makes  his  sun  to  rise  on  evil  and  good. 
And  sends  rain  on  just  and  unjust.  (*) 

JVom  the  fig  tree  learn  its  parable : 
When  its  branches  become  soft  and  burst  into  leaf 
You  know  that  summer  is  near; 


(»)   Mark  4:20-29. 

(*)   Matt.  IC:   2,  3. 

(^)    Luke  17:24;  Matt,  24:27, 

(*)    Matt.  5:45. 


JESUS   THE   PEASANT-POET   OF   GALILEE  17 

So,  when  you  see  all  this, 
Know  that  He  is  near — at  your  doors  !(^) 

Xo  man  having  put  his  hand  to  the  plow  and  looking 

back. 
Is  fit  for  the  Kingdom  of  God.(-) 

Enter  in  by  the  narrow  gate, 
Because  wide  is  the  gate  and  broad  the  road  that  leads 
to  destruction, 
And  many  are  they  that  enter  in  by  it; 
Because  narrow  is  the  gate  and  contracted  the  road  that 
leads  to  life, 
x\nd  few  are  they  that  find  it!(^) 

Listen :  the  sower  went  forth  to  sow. 
And  it  chanced  that  in  his  sowing  some  seed  fell  along- 
side the  road. 

And  the  birds  came  and  ate  it  up.     .     .     . 
And  other  seed  fell  among  the  thorns 

And  the  thorns  sprang  up  and  choked  it 

And  it  bore  no  fruit.  (*) 

The  Kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed. 

Which  a  man  took  and  sowed  in  his  field — 
A\'hich  indeed  is  the  smallest  of  all  seeds. 

But  when  it  has  grown  it  is  larger  than  the  herbs,  and 
becomes  a  tree, 
So   that   the  birds   of  the   air   come   and   roost   in   its 
branches.  (^) 

Why,  what  man  is  there  of  you,  who,  if  his  son  ask  a 
loaf,  will  give  him  a  stone? 
Or,  if  he  ask  a  fish,  will  give  him  a  serpent? 


(^)  Mark  13:28,  29. 

(2)  Luke  9:62. 

(«)  Matt.  7:13,  14. 

(*)  Matt.  13:4,  7. 

(')  Matt.  13:31,  32. 


18  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

If  yoii  then,  wicked  as  you  are,  know  how  to  give  good 

gifts  to  your  children, 
How  much  more  will  your  Father  who  is  in  Heaven  give 

good  gifts  to  those  that  ask  him  !  ( ^ ) 

Hut  let  us  not  fail  to  note  that  as  Jesus  looked  upon 
Xature,  he  did  not  see  merely  a  collection  of  beautiful  ob- 
jects, or  a  succession  of  interesting  events,  or  st  thesaurus 
of  illustrations,  but  almost  a  living  Thing,  radiant  with 
the  glory  of  an  immanent  God.  He  saw  everywhere  his 
Father's  hand ;  in  the  smallest  things  he  read  proofs  of  his 
Father's  love : 

Observe  the  ravens,  that  they  neither  sow  nor  reap, 

No  storehouse  nor  granary  have  they, 

And  God  feeds  them. 
How  much  more  are  you  worth  than  birdsl(-) 

Two  sparrows  are  sold  for  a  farthing,  are  tliey  not? 
And  not  one  of  thoni  falls  to  the  ground  without  your 
Father.  («) 

Rarely  does  Jesus  go  outside  of  his  personal  experience 
for  an  illustration.  In  one  case  he  is  thought  by  some  to 
have  done  so;  but,  though  we  have  no  account  of  such  a 
thing,  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  at  some  time  of 
his  life  he  had  stood  on  the  shore  of  the  Mediterranean  in 
a  storm: 

There  will  be  signs  in  sun  and  moon  and  stars, 

And  upon  the  earth  distress  of  nations, 

In  perplexity  for  the  roaring  of  the  sea  and  its  billows. (*) 

Equally  broad  and  precise  was  Jesus  in  his  observation 
of  animate  nature.  The  fauna  of  Palestine,  great  and 
small,  wild  and  domestic,  are  used  by  him  with  much  ef- 
fectiveness in  his  teaching.     He  speaks  most  frequently 

(^)  Matt.  7:9-11. 

(=^)  Luke  12:24. 

r)  Matt.   10:29;    Luke   12:6,   7. 

(')  Luke  21:2;-). 


JESUS   THE    PEASANT-POET    OE    (i  ALT  LEE  10 

of  the  domesticated  animals:  the  ox,  the  ass,  the  sheep, 
the  fatted  calf,  the  goat,  the  swine,  the  cock,  and  even  of 
those  snarling  curs  that  infest  Oriental  towns,  where  they 
aerve  as  scavengers,  not  as  coni])anions,  and  are  called  dogs 
by  Western  visitors,  merely  because  they  cannot  be  called 
anything  else.  Song-birds  are  rare  in  Syria,  but  the  spar- 
row and  the  raven  are  plentiful  and  are  often  mentioned : 

The  foxes  have  dens, 
And  the  birds  have  roosts, 
But  the  Son  of  Man  has  not  where  to  lay  his  head.(^) 

Where  the  carcass  is, 

There  the  vultures  will  be  gathered. (2) 

0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem !  that  kills  the  prophets 

And  stones  those  that  have  been  sent  to  you, 
How  often  would  I  have  gathered  your  children, 
As  a  hen  gathers  her  brood  under  her  wings, 
And  you  were  not  willing  !(^) 

IV 

All  human  interests  were  the  interests  of  Jesus;  noth- 
ing pertaining  to  man  was  foreign  to  him.  One  of  the  most 
illuminating  incidents  in  his  career  was  when  he  sat  by  the 
wellside  one  day,  adust,  athirst,  aweary,  and,  forgetting 
self  utterly,  taught  a  poor  Samaritan  woman  to  whom  the 
ordinary  Jew  would  have  disdained  even  to  speak.  To 
her  he  uttered  some  of  the  deepest  truths  that  ever  fell 
from  his  lips,  concerning  the  AVater  of  Life  and  the  spir- 
itual nature  of  worship.  It  followed  that  there  are  no 
"sacred  places,"  but  every  place  is  sacred  where  the  spirit 
of  man  rises  above  the  restraints  of  time  and  plac^  and 
circumstance   into  fellowship   witli   the  Divine   Spirit. ("*) 

(')  Matt.  8:20;  Luke  9:58. 

{')  Matt.   24:28;    Luke   17:37. 

(«)  Matt.  23:37. 

(*)  John  4:0-24. 


20  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

ISTeither  the  teaching  nor  the  incident  can  have  been  in- 
vented by  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  or  by  anybody 
else;  each  corresponds  too  closely  to  the  nature  of  Jesus 
to  admit  of  a  doubt  as  to  its  substantial  accuracy. 

While  all  classes  of  men  appealed  to  Jesus,  the  poor 
from  whom  he  sprang  were  alw^ays  closest  to  his  heart 
He  was  not  one  of  those  who,  so  soon  as  they  attain  some 
small  measure  of  fame  and  social  vogue,  promptly  and 
completely  forget  former  associates  and  associations.  He 
speaks  much  more  often  and  more  tenderly  of  the  poor, 
the  maimed,  the  halt,  the  blind,  the  sick,  the  beggars,  than 
of  the  rich.  Perhaps  the  highest  words  of  praise  that  he 
even  uttered  were  about  a  certain  unnamed,  poor  widow, 
who  out  of  her  great  love  put  into  the  Lord's  treasury  all 
that  she  had;(^)  and  next  to  hers,  he  praised  the  act  of 
another  woman  who  sacrificed  in  his  honor  her  dearest, 
her  costliest  treasure,  an  alabaster  vase  of  nard.  (^) 

It  was  the  common  complaint  against  Jesus  by  his  ene- 
mies that  he  made  companions  and  friends  of  tax-gatherers 
and  sinners,  as  if  a  modem  evangelist  should  single  out 
'^bootleggers"  and  women  of  the  street  for  his  best  min- 
istrations. Fancy  the  Billy  Sundays  doing  that!  Yet 
Jesus  did  not  shun  the  rich,  as  we  have  seen;  he  dined 
with  them  on  occasion ;  even  so  he  did  not  permit  cour- 
tesies to  seal  his  lips,  but  spoke  his  message  to  them  as 
others,  with  utter  plainness,  albeit  with  kindness.  He 
now  and  then  in  his  discourses  refers  to  rich  men,  nobles, 
kings,  to  give  point  to  a  precept;  and  he  cites  their  ways 
in  parable  or  sermon  to  make  plain  some  spiritual  truth. 
But  it  is  the  ordinary  peasant  folk  wdiom  he  knows  best,  of 
whose  life  he  is  an  intimate  part,  whom  he  always  has  in 
mind  whatever  the  subject  of  his  discourse.  They  are  his 
"little  ones,"  whom  it  is  worse  than  death  to  "offend,"  or 
cause  to  stumble. 

r)   Mark  12:41-44;  Luko  21:1-4. 
(-)   Matt.  26:6-13;  Mark  14:3-0 


JESUS   THE   PEASANT-POET    OF   GALILEE  21 

And  whoso  puts  a  snare  in  the  way  of  these  little  ones 

that  trust  in  me. 
Better  were  it  for  him  to  have  a  great  millstone  hung 

around  his  neck 
And  be  thrown  into  the  sea.(^) 

As  we  listen  to  Jesus  we  catch  pictures  of  the  villages 
of  Galilee,  with  their  flat-topped  houses  (^)  and  adobe 
walls, (")  through  which  robbers  could  so  easily  dig.  We 
see  their  streets  and  lanes,  thronged  by  the  busy  people.  (*) 
We  see  the  well  by  the  house,  into  which  ox  or  ass  might 
accidentally  fall,  in  which  case  he  is  to  be  drawn  out  even 
on  the  holy  Sabbath.  (■'^)  We  see  the  barns(^)  of  the  richer 
and  the  dunghills (^)  beside  them,  and  in  the  adjoining 
yard  the  plow,  the  threshing-floor  and  the  great  stone  for 
threshing  and  grinding  grain,  turned  by  ox  or  ass.  With- 
in the  house  we  see  the  lamp  and  its  stand,  the  beds  and 
couches,  the  table,  cup  and  platter,  and  the  key  to  the 
great  door  or  gate.(^).  The  marvel  is,  however,  not  that 
Jesus  mentions  so  many  of  these  things,  but  that  he  makes 
every  one  of  them  illustrate  some  vital  spiritual  truth. 
The  lamp  he  uses  many  times  and  it  affords  one  of  the 
best  instances  of  his  method: 

The  body's  lamp  is  the  eye : 
So,  if  your  eye  is  clear-sighted, 

Your  whole  body  will  be  light; 
But  if  your  eye  is  diseased, 

Your  whole  body  will  be  dark. 
If  then  the  light  in  you  is  darkness, 

How  great  the  darkness  !(^) 

^Mark  9:42;  Matt.  18 :G;  Luke  17:2. 
[*)    Mark  2:4;   13-15. 

')    Matt.  6:10. 

)   Luke  14:21. 

')    Luke  14:r>. 

')    Matt.  0:26;  Luke  12:18. 

)    Luke  14:35. 
?)    Matt.  5:15;  Mark  4:21;  Luke  16:20;  Matt.  23:25,  26;  Matt. 
16:19. 

(•)    Matt.  0:22,  23. 


22  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIAxMTY 

And  again: 

I  am  the  Light  of  the  world ! 
He  that  follows  me  will  not  walk  in  the  dark, 
But  will  have  the  light  of  life.(^) 

Other  effective  illustrations  from  the  daily  affairs  of  the 
household  are: 

I  am  the  Bread  of  life. 
He  that  comes  to  me  will  by  no  means  hunger, 
And  he  that  puts  his  trust  in  me  will  never  thirst. (-) 

Now  salt  is  good, 
But  if  the  salt  becomes  tasteless. 

With  what  will  you  season  it? 
It  is  not  fit  for  soil  or  dunghill — 

Men  throw  it  away. 
He  that  has  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear!(^) 

We  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  his  own  trade  fur- 
nishes Jesus  with  some  of  his  most  impressive  illustra- 
tions. The  ox-yokes,  clumsy  and  heavy  as  they  seem  to 
us  of  the  West,  he  likens  to  his  way  of  salvation,  which 
he  commends  as  less  burdensome  than  the  requirements  of 
the  Pharisees: 

Come  to  me,  all  you  tliat  lahor  and  are  heavy  laden. 

And  I  will  give  you  rest. 
Take  my  yoke  upon  you  and  learn  of  me. 

For  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart, 
And  you  will  find  rest  for  your  souls. 
For  my  yoke  is  easy, 
And  my  burden  light.  (*) 

The  importance  of  a  good  foundation  for  a  house  sug- 
gests the  eloquent  peroration  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount : 

(1)  John  8:12. 

(2)  John  6:35. 

(M    Luke  14:34,  3.5;  IMat.t.  5:13:  :\rnik  f)-J,0. 
(')    Matt.  11:28.30. 


JESUS   THE   PEASANT-POET    OF   GALILEE  ZO 

So,  then,  everyone  that  hears  these  words  and  does  them, 
Will  he  likened  to  a  prudent  man,  who  huilt  his  hoiu^e 
on  the  rock. 

And  the  rain  came  down, 

And  the  floods  rose, 

And  the  winds  blew, 
-And  beat  upon  that  house,  and  it  did  not  fall, 

For  it  was  founded  on  the  rock  I 

And  everyone  that  hears  these  words  of  mine  and  does 

them  not. 
Will  be  likened  to  a  silly  man,  who  built  his  house  on 

the  sand. 
And  the  rain  came  down, 
And  the  floods  rose. 
And  the  winds  blow, 
And  smote  upon  that  house,  and  it  fell, 
And  great  was  its  fall  I  ( ^ ) 

Hardly  less  effective,  though  less  poetic,  is  the  reference 
to  the  man  who  began  to  build  with  so  little  consideration 
of  the  cost  of  the  enterprise  and  the  extent  of  his  owm  re- 
sources, that  he  was  unable  to  finish  and  so  became  the 
mark  for  the  jeers  of  all  the  town.  (')  Hardly  a  town  in 
Galilee,  or  anywhere  else,  would  fail  to  furnish  forth  an 
apposite  case. 

The  social  relations  of  the  time  supply  Jesus  with  no 
small  part  of  his  material :  king  and  subjects,  neighbor 
and  friend,  host  and  guest,  owner  and  tenant,  employer 
and  worker,  borrower  and  lender,  judge  and  suitor,  sheriff 
and  prisoner,  robbers  and  their  victim,  and,  oftenest  of 
all,  master  and  slave.  How  often  these  social  incidents 
are  made  the  basis  of  parable  or  wise  saying  could  hardly 
be  effectively  set  forth  without  quoting  the  larger  part  of 
the  words  of  Jesus.  Any  reader  of  the  Gospels  can  call 
on  his  memory  for  instances  or  easily  find  them  for  him- 

C)    Matt.   7:24-27. 
(')    Luke  14:27-30. 


24  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHBISTIANITY 

self.  He  can  hardly  read  anywhere,  indeed,  without  find- 
ing them.  But  it  may  perhaps  be  allowable  to  cite  a  few 
instances  of  the  use  made  of  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave : 

No  house -servant  can  be  a  slave  to  two  masters, 
For  either  he  will  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other, 
Or  he  will  cling  to  one  and  scorn  the  other. 

You  cannot  be  slave  to  God  and  Mammon.  ( ' ) 

Every  one  that  lives  in  sin  is  sin's  slave. 

Now  the  slave  does  not  always  remain  in  the  house, 

But  the  son  remains  always; 
So,  if  the  Son  sets  you  free, 

You  will  be  freemen  indeed. (^) 

Keep  your  loins  girt. 

And  your  lamps  lit. 
And  be  like  men  waiting  for  their  master, 
Until  he  shall  return  from  a  wedding-feast. 
That,  when  he  comes,  they  may  admit  him  at  once. 
Happy  those  slaves  whom  the  master  finds  awake  when 
he  comes !(") 

Occupations  of  men  in  the  fields  about  ISTazareth  are 
likewise  often  drawn  upon  for  illustrative  material :  work- 
ing in  the  vineyards,  plowing  and  sowing  and  reaping, 
winnowing  the  wheat,  watering  the  cattle,  the  fisherman 
casting  his  nets.  The  hills  round  about  were  grazed  by 
many  sheep,  and  caring  for  them  was  an  important  part 
of  life  in  N'azareth.  The  shepherd's  work  suggested  sev- 
eral parables,  and  is  the  basis  for  an  elaborate  allegory  in 
the  fourth  Gospel : 

My  sheep  hear  my  voice, 

And  I  kuow  them  and  tliev  follow  me; 


(M    Luke  16:13. 
(^)   John  8:34-30. 
(')    Luke  12:35,  36. 


JESUS    THE    PEASANT-POET    OF    GAEILEE  25 

And  I  give  them  eternal  life, 

And  they  will  not  he  lost — no,  never ! 

And  no  one  will  snatch  them  out  of  my  hand.(^) 

I  am  the  Good  Shepherd : 

The  Good  Shepherd  lays  down  his  life  for  the  sheep. 
He  that  is  a  hired  man  and  not  the  shepherd, 

Who  does  not  own  the  sheep. 
Sees  the  wolf  coming  and  leaves  the  sheep  and  runs  away 

(And  the  wolf  makes  them  his  prey  and  scatters  them) 
Because  he  is  a  hired  man  and  cares  nothing  for  the 
sheep.  (^) 

Not  only  agriculture  but  ^'business'^  furnishes  its  fair 
share  of  illustrative  instances:  the  merchantman  seeking 
goodly  pearls,  (")  bankers  and  interest,  (*),  as  well  as  the 
coins  in  which  all  transactions  took  place — ^^talent," 
^'pound''  (mina)y  "penny"  or  "shilling"  (denary),  "far- 
thing" or  "mite"  (lepta).C) 

Toothing  seems  too  insignificant  to  merit  the  attention 
of  Jesus,  or  too  homely  or  too  familiar  to  serve  his  pur- 
pose. He  shows  us  the  housewife  mending  the  family 
clothes,  or  spinning  flax  or  wool  to  make  new  garments ; 
sweeping  the  house  with  lighted  lamp  to  find  her  lost 
coin ;  or  putting  yeast  in  her  meal  to  make  bread,  as  well 
as  the  small,  flat  loaves  into  which  she  bakes  it,  the  oven 
in  wdiich  it  is  baked  and  the  rude  stone  hand-mill  in  which 
she  grinds  her  meal.  He  shows  us  the  store-room  or 
"treasury"  out  of  which  the  householder  brings  things  new 
and  old ;  and  the  "treasure"  or  hoard  of  every  family  in  the 
East,  generally  a  sum  of  money  buried  in  the  dirt  floor  or 
under  the  pavement : 

C)   John  10:27,  28. 

C)   John  10:11-13. 

(')   Matt.  13:45,  46. 

{*)   Luke  19:13. 

C)   Matt.  18:24:  Luke  19:13;  Mark  12:42,  etc. 


26  FUNDAMEXTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

Treasure  not  for  yourselves   treasures  on   earth. 
Where  moth  and  rust  destroy. 
And  where  thieves  dig  through  and  steal; 
But  treasure  for  yourselves  treasures  in  Heaven, 
Where  neither  moth  nor  rust  destroys, 
And  where  thieves  do  not  dig  through  and  steal. 
For  where  your  treasure  is, 
There  will  be  your  heart  also.(^) 

Clothing,  that  for  every  day  and  that  for  special  occasions, 
often  figures  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus;  the  cloak  and 
tunic, (^)  girdle,  sandals,  staff,  purse,  scrip(^)  (or,  as  we 
say,  ''grip"),  and  for  more  formal  occasions  the  robe, 
"long  robes,"  "wedding  garment." (*).  In  short,  from  the 
parables  and  sayings  of  Jesus  a  whole  volume  on  Jewish 
archaeology  might  easily  be  compiled. 

Popular  customs  not  infrequently  furnish  an  apt  simile 
or  other  illustration,  especially  the  religious:  the  habits 
of  prayer,  the  interior  of  the  synagogue  and  its  form  of 
service.  The  chief  events  of  life — birth,  marriage,  death — 
which  have  not  only  an  individual  but  a  social  signifi- 
cance, are  very  prominent  in  the  teachings.  The  marriage- 
feast,  in  particular,  everywhere  in  the  East  one  of  the 
chief  social  functions,  is  a  favorite  subject,  the  main  theme 
of  several  parables  and  an  object  of  frequent  allusion. 
The  music  and  dancing  by  hired  entertainers  that  are 
usual  accompaniments  of  Oriental  social  occasions,  are  by 
no  means  forgotten.  (^)  Even  the  street  games  of  the  vil- 
lage urchins  are  levied  upon  for  illustration.  C') 

On  everything  included  in  the  broad  term  "politics," 
public  events  and  policies,  Jesus  is  significantly  silent. 
Things  military,  war  and  weapons,  so  prominent  in  ancient 
times  and  especially  under  Eoman  rule,  he  mentions  spai-- 

(^)  Matt.  6:19-21. 

n  Matt.  5:40. 

(•')  Matt.  10:10. 

(*)  Luke  15:22;  Matt.  22:11. 

(^)  Luke  L5:25. 

( ''■ )  Matt.  1 1 : 1  ()- 1 9  :  Lu ke  7:31  -.34. 


JESUS   THE    PEASANT-POET    OF   GALILEE  Zi 

ing]y,  and  more  because  they  are  tilings  generally  familiar 
to  his  hearers  than  because  they  filled  any  large  place  in 
his  own  thinking; 

"Or  what  king  sets  out  to  encounter  another  king  in 
battle,  without  first  sitting  down  and  considering  whether 
he  is  able  to  meet  with  ten  thousand  the  one  advaneinii' 
against  him  with  twenty  thousand.  And  if  not,  while 
the  other  is  still  a  long  way  off,  he  sends  envoys  and  asks 
terms  of  peace.''(') 

If  we  did  not  positively  know  that  Jesus  was  country- 
bred,  we  could  with  absolute  certainty  infer  it  from  his 
words ;  for  everywhere  it  is  the  processes  of  nature  and  tlse 
life  of  country-folk  that  suggest  to  him  spiritual  analogies, 
not  the  life  of  camp  or  city. 

(')   Luke  14:31,  .S2. 


CHAPTER  II 
JESUS  THE  PEOPHET  AISTD  TEACHER 


OuE  Gospels  warrant  us  in  concluding  that  his  prophetic 
function  bulked  largest  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus.  His 
mission,  as  he  conceived  it,  was  to  make  God  known  to 
men,  that  he  might  bring  men  back  to  God — made  es- 
pecially clear  in  the  Eourth  Gospel,  but  by  no  means  ob- 
scure in  the  others.  But  to  realize  this  purpose,  to  make 
God  known  effectively,  Jesus  must  be  teacher,  no  less  than 
prophet.  Among  the  greatest  teachers  he  was,  if  we  con- 
sider his  method  merely ;  while  he  was  the  great  Teacher 
of  the  ages,  if  we  consider  also  his  message.  In  this  chap- 
ter we  are  to  consider  the  method  chiefly,  while  the  two 
chapters  to  follow  will  be  concerned  mainly  with  the  mes- 
sage. It  may  not  prove  possible  in  all  cases  to  preserve 
this  distinction  with  exactitude,  but  as  a  general  descrip- 
tion it  should  pass  muster. 

To  his  ovm  generation,  the  chief  pedagogic  trait  of  Jesus 
seemed  to  be  his  tone  of  authority.  Frequent  in  the  Gos- 
pels are  passages  like  this:  ^'The  multitudes  were  aston- 
ished at  his  teaching,  for  he  taught  as  one  having  author- 
ity, and  not  as  their  scribes."  (^)  How  did  their  scribes 
teach?  Just  as  a  modem  preacher  teaches:  they  took  a 
text  from  the  Law  and  then  expounded  and  enforced  it. 
They  sheltered  themselves  behind  the  authority  of  Moses 
and  the  Prophets:  they  claimed  no  authority  of  their  own. 

(^)  Matt.  7:28,  20;  13:54;  22:33;  Mark  11:18;  Luke  4:32; 
John  7:40. 

28 


JESUS    TJIE    PKOPHET    A::^D    TEACHER  29 

But  Jesus  differed  sharply  from  them  in  that  he  claimed 
independent,  essential  authority: 

You  have  heard  that  it  was  said, 

"Eye  for  eye, 

And  tooth  for  tooth." 
But  /  say  to  you. 

Resist  not  the  evil  man. 

You  have  heard  that  it  was  said, 

'^Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 

And  thou  shalt  hate  thine  enemy.'' 
But  I  say  to  you, 

Love  your  enemies^ 

And  pray  for  those  that  persecute  you.(^) 

Many  of  the  words  of  Jesus  are  redeemed  from  insuf- 
ferable conceit,  from  wicked  arrogance  and  pretension, 
only  if  we  concede  to  him  what  he  claimed,  unique  author- 
ity as  Teacher.  The  Pharisees  continually  revolted  against 
this  claim ;  his  owm  disciples  often  protested  and  grumbled 
among  themselves  ;(^)  but  he  went  on  calmly  announcing 
his  great  truths,  mostly  to  dull  ears  and  unbelieving  hearts. 
He  never  bated  one  jot  of  his  claims;  in  no  case  did  he 
soften  his  teachings  to  make  them  more  palatable.  To  the 
end,  his  tone  was  that  of  one  born  to  command  speaking  to 
those  born  to  obey.  Not  that  he  was  imperious,  overbear- 
ing, haughty — every  reader  of  the  Gospels  knows  that  he 
was  the  reverse  of  this,  but  every  reader  also  knows  that 
he  was  authoritative. 

Why  do  not  teachings  of  such  character  jar  our  sensi- 
bilities ?  Why  did  they  not  expose  Jesus  when  he  spoke 
to  the  scoffs  and  jeers  of  the  multitude?  The  record 
shows  that  men  might  reject  his  teaching,  they  might  hate 
him  with  deadly  hatred,  they  might  conspire  to  put  him 
to  death ;  the  one  thing  they  miglit  r\o\  do  was  to  langli  ar 

(^)   Matt.  5:38,  39,  43,  44. 
(*)    e.g.  John  G:60,  06. 


30  FUA'DAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIA^^ITY 

him.      True   or  false,   he   spoke   with   an   authority   that 
separates  his  teaching  from  all  other  teaching. 

The  secret  of  this  authority  of  Jesus  as  Teacher  can  of 
course  be  sought  in  nothing  else  than  in  his  character. 
When  a  Marcus  Aurelius  speaks,  the  imperial  purple  may 
dazzle  men  and  make  them  see  in  his  commonplaces  pro- 
found wisdom;  but  there  was  no  rank,  no  adventitious  cir- 
cumstance, to  give  undeserved  weight  to  what  Jesus  said. 
To  all  appearances  he  was  nothing  but  an  ordinary  peasant 
of  Galilee.  But  he  w^as  more:  so  much  more  that  men 
hung  on  his  words  and  treasured  them  in  memory.  What 
he  was  determined  what  he  spoke  and  feathered  the  arrows 
of  truth  that  he  sent  always  into  the  gold.  Because  Jesus 
surpassed  all  men  in  the  depth  and  reality  of  his  life  Avitli 
God,  he  was  God's  prophet  as  none  other.  Because  he  and 
the  Father  were  one,  he  speaks  with  the  calm,  deep  certi- 
tude of  one  who  knows  spiritual  things,  not  guesses  them. 

The  method  of  Jesus  was  the  intuitional.  He  relied  on 
the  religious  intuitions,  his  own  first  of  all,  but  next  on 
those  of  his  hearers.  The  method  of  most  teachers  is  the 
logical ;  they  aim  to  prove  religious  truth  by  reasoning. 
But  all  reasoning  goes  back  ultimately  to  a  few  ])rinci])l{'s 
that  are  intuitively  perceived  and  are  themselves  incapable 
of  proof.  They  are  deliverances  of  consciousness,  which 
we  must  take  on  faith  solely.  'No  amount  of  argument  or 
proof  can  make  these  fundamentals  more  credible  to  us 
than  they  are  in  themselves.  If  a  man  is  not  convinced, 
on  a  mere  statement  of  the  proposition,  that  things  equal 
to  the  same  thing  are  equal  to  each  other,  or  that  two  and 
two  make  four,  or  that  right  is  right  and  wrong  is  wrong, 
then  no  testimony,  no  syllogisms,  can  ever  clear  the  matter 
up  for  him.  So  Jesus  ignored  the  logical  process  and  ap- 
pealed straight  to  the  intuitions.  Jesus  never  argued. 
Jesus  never  proved.  Open  the  Gospels  where  you  will, 
and  you  shall  find  him  simply  announcing  truth,  leaving 
those  who  have  ears  to  hear,  to  hear. 


JESUS    THE    PROPJIET    AND    TEACHEll  31 

It  is  therefore  to  wisdom  and  experience,  the  intuitive 
element  in  knowledge,  that  Jesus  appeals  for  confirmation 
of  teaching,  when  he  cites  any  corroborative  authority,  not 
10  scholarship  and  criticism,  knowledge  painfully  acquired 
by  study.  Yet  he  could  on  occasion  worst  the  scribes  in 
tlieir  own  rabbinic  dialetic.  A  good  example  is  his  retort 
after  they  had  tried  to  trip  him  by  asking  subtle  questions 
of  legalism: 

How  do  the  scribes  say  that  the  Messiah  is  David's  Son  ? 
David  himself  said,  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 

Jfliovah  said  to  my  Lord, 

''Sit  on  my  right  hand, 

Till  I  put  thine  enemies  underneath  thy  feet." 
David  himself  calls  him  "Lord";  and  whence  is  he  his 

Son?(i) 

The  question  was  unansw^erable,  so  long  as  they  refused 
to  accept  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  it  reduced  his  critics 
to  silence.  A  similar  case  was  his  reply  to  Sadducees  who 
quibbled  about  the  resurrection,  and  propounded  to  him 
the  problem  of  the  woman  who  had  been  married  succes- 
sively to  seven  brothers,  and  as  climax  demanding,  '^In 
the  resurrection  whose  wife  shall  she  be  of  tlie  seven  ?" 
Jesus  in  reply  accused  them  of  misinterpretation  of  their 
own  standard  of  authority,  the  Books  of  Moses,  and  nsed 
against  them  their  own  methods  of  exegesis ;  quoting  the 
words  of  God  to  Moses  at  the  burning  bush,  "I  am  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac  and  the  God  of 
Jacob,"  from  which  he  drew  the  inference,  which  they 
were  unable  to  dispute,  "He  is  not  the  God  of  dead  men, 
but  of  living.     You  greatly  err."(") 

The  much  maligned  Friends  have  come  nearer  than  any 
other  modern  Christians  to  understanding  the  spirit  of 
Jesus  and  imitating  his  method.     Unfortunately  for  the 


(M   Matt.  22:41-40;  Mark  12:35-37:  Luke  20:41-44. 
(')    Matt.  22:23-32:  Mark  12:18-27;  Luke  20:27-40. 


32  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

reception  of  their  truth,  they  mingled  with  it  much  foolish 
exegesis  of  Scripture,  and  taught  with  equal  emphasis 
error  with  truth,  so  that  the  world  has  rejected  both.  But 
George  Fox  was  quite  in  line  with  his  Master  in  urging 
that  the  religion  of  the  letter,  of  the  printed  book,  of  rites 
and  ceremonies,  is  by  comparison  nothing.  But  the  life  of 
the  spirit  is  difficult;  to  profess  a  complicated  creed,  to 
practice  a  florid  cult,  is  easy.  Yet  Jesus  did  his  best  to 
make  the  spiritual  life  the  simple  life.  His  teaching, 
though  profound  as  ocean,  is  always  sane,  convincing.  Our 
inmost  souls  respond  to  his  word ;  deep  calls  to  deep.  For 
to  Jesus  truth  was  not  something  written  in  books,  or 
something  handed  down  on  the  lips  of  wise  men  of  old; 
it  was  something  living,  throbbing  with  reality,  some- 
thing autoptic,  indisputable,  indestructible.  But  every 
man  must  see  it  for  himself,  or  it  cannot  be  truth  for  him. 
The  Master's  teaching  was  described  by  Peter  as  "words 
of  eternal  life,"  spiritual  truth  that  must  be  received  by 
every  disciple  on  its  own  self -evidencing  power,  and  conse- 
quently meaningless  to  any  man  until  by  so  receiving  it 
he  makes  it  his  own.  Then  it  is  his  inalienable  possession 
forever. 

And  so,  only  on  a  single  occasion,  and  then  because  the 
occasion  itself  required  it,  did  Jesus  ever  formally  ex- 
pound the  Scriptures  of  his  people,  or  cite  them  as  his 
authority.  Often  he  cited  them  as  the  authority  of  his 
liearers,  as  an  argumentum  ad  hominem,  to  prove  to  them 
that,  from  their  own  point  of  view,  their  criticisms  and 
objections  were  groundless.  But  he  never  claimed  them 
as  the  source  of  his  teachings,  or  as  giving  his  words 
higher  value.  In  his  treatment  of  tradition  and  Scripture, 
he  gave  his  followers  a  lesson  for  all  time — a  lesson  little 
to  the  profit  of  the  greater  number  in  all  the  centuries, 
because  they  have  refused  to  heed.  Jesus  dealt  with  the 
substance  of  truth,  not  the  form,  with  eternal  realities 
rather  than   with    transitory   aud    imperfect  attempts   to 


JESUS    THE    PROPHET    AND    TEACIIEil  3'3' 

express  eternal  verities.    Which  is  the  same  as  saying  that 
he  ignored  the  Jewish  theology  of  his  day. 

We  do  not  heed  this  lesson,  because  theology  seems  so 
important  that  we  have  come  to  identify  theology  with 
trnth.  Our  minds  are  so  anaesthetized  by  doctrines  said 
to  be  drawn  from  inspired  sources  that  our  moral  intui- 
tions do  not  function  when  we  read  the  words  of  Jesus. 
To  the  man  who  believes  that  anything  must  be  accepted 
as  true,  just  because  it  may  be  plausibly  deduced  from 
something  that  somebody  (often  an  unknown  person) 
wrote  in  a  book  two  thousand  years  ago,  one  appeals  in 
vain  to  trust  his  intuitions  or  to  exercise  his  reason.  His 
intuitions  are  atrophied  by  disuse ;  his  reason  has  abdicated 
and  turned  his  soul  over  to  authority.  He  cannot  perceive 
truth,  he  dare  not  reason  about  truth — he  might  be  danmed 
if  he  did! 

There  are  several  possible  (and  actual)  theories  about 
divine  revelation.  There  is  the  orthodox  Protestant  the- 
ory: that  God  spoke  often  two  or  three  thousand  years 
ago,  mostly  to  a  few  peasant  folk,  and  then  shut  himself 
up  in  his  Heaven  and  has  ever  since  refused  to  speak  to 
anybody.  And  then  there  is  the  orthodox  Catholic  theory : 
that  God  has  remained  shut  up  in  his  Heaven  most  of  the 
time  and  for  most  people,  but  has  now  and  then  opened  a 
window  and  spoken  to  a  saint  here  and  a  saint  there.  If 
one  had  to  choose  between  the  Protestant  theory  and  the 
Catholic,  one  would  choose  the  latter,  as  the  one  that  honors 
God  most  and  insults  common  sense  least.  But  fortu- 
nately there  is  another  theory:  that  God  never  shut  him- 
self up  in  his  Heaven,  but  has  always  remained  in  his 
world  and  among  the  men  he  has  made,  too  often  unrec- 
ognized by  those  who  boasted  of  being  on  most  familiar 
terms  with  him,  but  ready  ever  to  speak  to  any  who  cared 
enough  about  his  word  to  listen.  As  that  is  the  most 
sensible  theory,  the  most  God-honoring  theory,  the  only 
theory  that  accords  with  the  facts  of  religious  experience, 


34  FUNDAMENTALS  OF   CHRISTIANITY 

naturally  both  Protestants  and  Catholics  with  one  voice 
shout  at  anybody  who  mentions  it,  ^'Heresy !  Heresy !  Put 
him  out!" 

Inspiration  meant  among  the  Hebrews  that  all  their 
great  men  and  women — kings,  warriors,  lawgivers,  no  less 
than  poets  and  prophets — were  believed  to  receive  com- 
munications and  direction  from  Jehovah.  Among  early 
Christians  inspiration  meant  that  the  Spirit  of  God  was 
given  to  all  believers  as  guide  and  teacher,  while  he  be- 
stowed special  gifts  on  some,  who  in  the  aggregate  were 
many.  Only  at  a  relatively  late  period  did  the  idea 
emerge  that  inspiration  was  restricted  to  the  small  group 
who  produced  the  surviving  literature,  whether  Hebrew 
or  Greek ;  or  that  this  inspiration  was  of  a  special  quality, 
unshared  by  others ;  or  that  it  entirely  ceased  at  a  given 
time.  These  notions  of  inspiration  have  nothing  to  com- 
mend them  to  this  generation  but  their  supposed  antiquity, 
and  on  examination  that  turns  out  to  be  a  sham.  The 
commonly  prevailing  concept  of  "inspiration"  was  orig- 
inally invented  by  the  Fathers  of  the  early  Catholic 
Church,  as  a  weapon  against  the  numerous  heretics  of  the 
first  three  centuries.  An  infallible  Bible  furnished  an 
inexhaustible  arsenal  of  texts  against  those  who  defied  the 
authority  of  the  Church.  But  heretics  could  cite  texts, 
too,  and  the  Church  soon  found  herself  so  embarrassed  by 
her  own  doctrine  of  inspiration  that  it  was  suffered  quietly 
to  slip  into  the  background,  while  emphasis  was  laid  more 
and  more  on  the  authority  of  the  organization  itself  and 
of  the  Fathers  who  buttressed  it. 

This  demand  for  infallibility  seems  instinctive;  at  any 
rate  it  is  universal.  What  a  pity  it  cannot  be  satisfied ! 
There  is  authority  in  religion,  but  not  infallible  authority 
— it  is  the  authority  of  truth  alone.  Every  other  authority 
on  which  man  has  leaned  for  infallible  guidance  has 
showed  itself  to  be  no  better  than  a  broken  reed.  Men 
have  found  by  bitter  experience  that  the  Pope  is  not  in- 
fallible, that  the  Church  is  not  infallible,  that  the  Bible 


JESrS  THE  PROPHET  AND  TEACHER         OO 

is  not  infallible,  that  the  human  reason  is  not  infallible, 
that  the  Christian  consciousness  is  not  infallible.  Falli- 
bility, we  must  conclude,  is  an  inescapable  limitation  of 
humanity,  inseparable  from  the  possession  of  finite  pow- 
ers. Even  divine  inspiration  cannot  infuse  infallibility 
into  a  finite  mind  and  spirit ;  or,  if  that  be  open  to  debate 
as  an  abstract  proposition,  it  is  demonstrable  fact  that 
inspiration  has  never  yet  produced  infallibility  in  man. 
''For  now  we  know  in  part''  must  forever  continue  to  be 
our  confession.  Absolute  truth  is  known  to  God  alone; 
to  us  the  search  for  truth,  with,  we  may  hope,  an  approxi- 
mation to  the  goal  that  increases  from  age  to  age. 

When  he,  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  is  come 
He  will  guide  you  into  all  the  truth — (^) 

guide  you,  gradually,  ultimately,  not  reveal  to  you  truth 
in  its  fulness  all  at  once  and  once  for  all.  The  Christian 
world  would  be  delivered  from  intolerable  bondage  if  it 
could,  in  some  happy  hour,  learn  that  its  cherished  ''doc- 
trines" are  not  absolute  and  final  truths,  but  guesses  at 
truth,  working  hypotheses  regarding  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
from  their  very  nature  subject  to  constant  modification 
and  revision  in  the  light  of  advancing  knowledge  and  en- 
larged experience. 

II 

In  form,  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  no  less  remarkable 
than  in  substance,  though  possibly  less  unique.  All  Ori- 
ental teachers  deal  much  in  metaphor,  the  literary  ex- 
pression of  poetry  rather  than  of  prose.  Jesus  abounds  in 
metaphor.  He  describes  his  disciples  after  this  fashion: 
Peter  is  "a  Eock,"  James  and  John  are  "Sons  of  Thun- 
der," (")  and  all  are  "fishers  of  men,"  "sheep  in  the  midst 
of  wolves,"  "little  children,"  "the  salt  of  the  earth,"  "the 

(•)    John   16:13. 

(-)  But  pcrliaps  tliis  iiaiiu'  was  L;i\oii  l)y  tlieir  follow-disciples, 
not  l)y  Jesus. 


yt)  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

light  of  the  world,"  and  some  are  ^^eunuchs."  To  be  his 
disciple  is  to  "take  my  yoke  upon  you/'  or  "take  up  the 
cross  and  follow  me/'  or  "drink  the  cup  that  I  am  about 
to  drink."  The  Pharisees  are  a  "generation  of  vipers/' 
"whited  sepulchers/'  "actors  wearing  masks"  (the  exact 
sense  of  "hypocrites"),  "wolves  in  sheep's  clothing,"  and 
their  teaching  is  "yeast."  The  relation  between  character 
and  conduct  is  not  defined  with  careful  precision  of  words, 
as  a  Western  teacher  would  attempt,  but  expressed  in  a 
double  metaphor : 

Either  make  the  tree  good  and  its  fruit  good, 
Or  else  make  the  tree  rotten  and  its  fruit  rotten. (^) 

Or,  again,  this  time  with  a  touch  of  scorn : 

Do  men  gather  grapes  from  thorns, 
Or  figs  from  thistles  ?(^) 

Truth  and  error  are  many  times  expressed  in  terms  of 
light  and  darkness,  while  both  death  and  life  are  symbol- 
ized in  the  growth  of  a  kernel  of  wheat.  Himself,  his 
character  and  mission,  are  most  frequently  set  forth  in 
metaphor — he  is  the  Light  of  the  World,  the  Bread  of 
Life,  the  Water  of  Life.  Once  his  metaphor  was  wittily 
turned  against  him,  when  he  seemed  to  reject  the  plea  of 
the  Syro-Phenecian  mother,  with  the  word,  "It  is  not  fit- 
ting to  take  the  children's  loaf  and  throw  it  to  the  dogs." 
In  a  flash  she  replied,  "True,  sir,  but  even  the  dogs  eat  of 
the  crumbs  that  fall  from  their  master's  table."  Deeply 
moved  and  pleased,  Jesus  responded,  "Madam,  great  is 
your  trust!    Be  it  done  to  you  as  you  desire." (^) 

Sometimes  the  metaphors  were  so  extraordinary  that 
they  seemed  to  his  hearers  extravagant  or  meaningless. 
Nicodemus  could  not  comprehend  the  saying: 

(TMatt.  12:33. 

(2)   Matt.  7:10. 

(»)    Matt.  15:22-28;  Mark  7:25-29. 


JESUS    THE    PliOPIIET    AND    TEACHER  37 

Except  one  be  born  from  above 

He  cannot  see  the  Kingdom  of  God.(^) 

And  some  who  had  followed  him  until  then,  turned  their 
backs  on  him  when  he  declared: 

Unless  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man 

And  drink  his  blood, 
You  have  not  life  in  yourselves. (") 

To  this  day  many  of  his  most  characteristic  and  im- 
portant words  are  stumbling-blocks  to  his  professed  dis- 
ciples, because  they  persist  in  applying  to  his  Oriental 
metaphors  a  principle  of  literal  interpretation  that  they 
by  no  means  always  apply  to  the  formal  definitions  of 
councils  and  the  statements  of  creeds.  Such  a  case,  for 
example,  as  this : 

If  any  man  come  to  me^ 

And  hate  not  his  father  or  mother, 

And  wife  and  children, 

And  brothers  and  sisters. 

Yea,  even  his  own  life. 
Pie  cannot  be  disciple  of  mine. 
And  whoso  does  not  carry  his  own  cross  and  come  after  me, 
He  cannot  be  disciple  of  mine.(^) 


III 

Renan  is  quite  justified  in  his  assertion  that  the  wit  and 
humor  of  Jesus  constitute  one  of  the  most  impressive  fea- 
tures of  the  Gospels.  Certainly,  they  are  the  most  dis- 
tinctive feature.  Most  amazing,  therefore,  is  the  failure, 
the  total  failure,  of  interpreters  in  all  ages  to  recognize 
what  is  by  all  odds  the  most  sliining  quality  of  Jesus 
among  the  great  religious  teachers  of  the  world,  the  faculty 

(M    John  3:. 3. 

(2)   John  G:53. 

(»)    Luke  14:20,  27. 


o8  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

that  sets  liim  head  and  shoulders  above  all  others.  The 
reason  for  this  failure  is,  no  doubt,  the  fact  that  even  now 
to  speak  of  Jesus  as  a  humorist  will  strike  the  majority 
of  pious  Christians  as  a  shocking  irreverence.  And  tliis 
again  is  because  people  in  general  have  come  to  entertain 
a  low  and  degrading  idea  about  wit  and  humor.  It  is 
quite  true  that  niucli  of  that  humor"  of  which  the  Ameri- 
can people  are  the  proud  and  sole  possessors  is  nothing  bet- 
ter than  a  feeble  jocosity  alternating  with  dull  buffoonery. 
We  are  in  danger  of  becoming  a  nation  of  clowns  and 
patrons  of  clowns.  We  never  do  anything  by  halves,  but 
our  labors  to  be  funny  are  our  hardest  work.  We  are  fond 
of  quoting: 

A  merry  heart  doeth  good  like  medicine, (^) 

but  not  so  fond  of  another  saying  of  the  Wise  Man: 

For  as  the  crackling  of  thorns  under  a  pot, 
So  is  the  laughter  of  the  fool.(") 

As  a  people  we  have  little  appreciation  of  the  happy 
medium  between  sobs  and  smiles,  grins  and  groans.  We 
have  never  learned  that  to  be  cheerful  it  is  not  necessary 
to  giggle,  nor  that  to  be  serious  one  need  not  weep. 
^'Quips  and  cranks  and  wanton  wiles"  abound  in  our  con- 
versation, in  our  newspapers,  in  our  books,  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  suggest  national  lack  of  discrimination  between 
condiments  and  foods.  A  dash  of  tabasco  in  soup  or  gravy 
is  appetizing,  but  a  spoonful  is  torture.  Too  much  fun  is 
worse  than  none.  A  continuous  round  of  pleasure  ends 
in  complete  boredom — as  that  wise  man  understood  who 
said,  "Life  would  be  quite  tolerable  but  for  its  amuse- 
ments." 

The  suggestion  that  Jesus  used  wit  and  humor  freely 
in  his  discourses  will  give  a  distinct  shock  to  many  read- 
ers, in  whose  minds  still  lingers  the  Puritan  superstition 

nTProv.  17:22. 
(^)   Eccl.  7:0. 


JESUS  THE  PROPHET  AND  TEACHER         39 

tliat  a  deep  gravity  of  word  and  demeanor  is  alone  suit- 
able to  the  discussion  of  religious  themes.  But  the  Puri- 
tans and  their  descendants  have  shown  themselves  quite 
unable  to  appreciate  either  the  nature  of  Jesus  or  the  na- 
ture of  wit  and  humor.  Tor  wit  and  humor  are  by  no 
means  restricted  to  that  volatile  jesting  whose  chief  func- 
tion is  to  conceal  absence  of  thought.  They  do  not  con- 
sist in  sheer  boisterous  banalities.  Their  purpose  is  not 
merely  to  provoke  laughter  of  light-minded  folk.  They 
have  their  serious  use  also,  and  this  is  by  far  their  most 
important  function  in  literature  and  life. 

Jesus  always  spoke  wdth  deep  inner  seriousness,  yet 
much  of  the  time  with  wit  that  gives  his  teachings  point 
and  keenness,  nearly  always  with  lambent  humor  that 
makes  his  sayings  tender  and  appealing.  He  at  least  com- 
prehended, if  some  of  his  followers  do  not,  that  a  sense  of 
humor  is  imperatively  needed  for  the  attainment  of  true 
moral  values,  and  is  an  indispensable  part  of  the  equip- 
ment of  a  great  religious  teacher. 

It  is  precisely  this  trait  that  makes  the  Synoptic  Jesus 
so  human  a  figure.  Other  great  religious  teachers — Con- 
fucius, Buddha,  Moses,  Mohammed — have  taken  their 
message  and  themselves  with  that  deadly  seriousness  which 
tends  to  defeat  its  own  purpose.  The  ethical  sobriety  of 
Jesus  is  wholly  consistent  w^ith  an  intellectual  gayety  of 
the  sort  that  the  French  call  esprit,  and  not  a  little  of  his 
power  is  distinctly  traceable  to  this  element,  which  the 
Christian  sages  have  so  persistently  ignored — possibly  be- 
cause the  saving  gift  of  humor  has  been  withheld  from  so 
many  of  them,  but  more  probably  because  they  felt  that 
to  attribute  humor  to  Jesus  would  be  almost  like  accusing 
him  of  sinfulness.  The  truest  reverence  for  the  Master 
is  to  see  Him  as  he  was. 

Wit,  it  is  commonly  agreed,  consists  in  putting  together 
objects  or  ideas  not  usually  associated,  so  as  to  produce  a 
pleasing  sensation  of  surprise.  But  the  quick  flash  of  wit 
is  like  an  electric  spark,  in  that  it  not  only  surprises  but 


40  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

illumines.  Jesus  uses  wit  not  so  much  to  give  pleasure 
as  to  give  light.  His  sayings  never  provoke  a  laugh,  but 
often  they  make  one  see  truth  with  a  vividness  not  other- 
wise possible.  Perhaps  oftenest  his  wit  takes  the  form  of 
apothegm,  neat,  terse,  pregnant  sayings,  frequently  para- 
doxical, that,  once  heard,  fix  themselves  in  memory  for- 
ever.    Familiar  cases  are: 

A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand. (^) 

The  Kingdom  of  God  does  not  come  with  watching  for 
it.(^') 

A  man's  life  does  not  consist  in  the  extent  of  his  posses- 
sions. (") 

To  him  that  has  will  be  given, 

x\nd  from  him  that  has  not  will  be  taken   even  what 
he  has.(*) 

Every  one  that  exalts  himself  will  be  humbled, 

And  he  that  humbles  himvself  will  be  exalted. (^) 

Whoever  would  be  first  among  you  will  be  your  slave. C') 

I  came  to  cast  fire  upon  the  earth, 
Would  that  it  were  already  kindled ! 

So  I  have  a  baptism  to  undergo, 

And  how  a^n  I  distressed  till  it  is  accomplished ! 

Think  you  I  have  come  to  give  peace  in  the  earth  ? 
No,  I  assure  you,  but  rather  dissension. (') 
Sometimes  the  wit  takes  the  form  of  epigram : 

Give  then  to  Caesar  what  belongs  to  Caesar, 
And  to  God  what  belongs  to  God.(^) 

On  a  few  occasions  Jesus  seems  actually  to  banter  his 
adversaries,  the  Pharisees.  Thus,  when  they  demanded 
of  him,  "By  what  authority  do  you  do  these  things  ?"  such 
as  driving  the  traders  out  of  the  Temple,  he  replied: 


M  Mark  3:25. 

')  Luke  17:20. 

')  Luke   12:L5. 

*)  Matt.  13:12. 

")  Luke    14:11     (repeated   several   times) 

«)  Matt.  20:27. 

■)  Luke  12:40-51. 

»)  Mark  12:17,  etc. 


JESUS  THE  PROPHET  AND  TEACHER         41 

I  will  also  ask  you  a  question: 

The  baptism  of  John — 

Was  it  from  Heaven  or  from  men  ? 

His  nonplussed  critics  dared  say  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other,  and  so  replied,  ^^We  don't  know."  So  Jesus  closed 
the  matter  by  saying,  ^^l^either  do  I  tell  you  by  what 
authority  I  do  these  things." (^)  At  another  time,  when 
messengers  came  from  the  Baptist,  asking  for  a  clear  dec- 
laration whether  he  was  the  Messiah  or  not,  after  answer- 
ing them  Jesus  spoke  to  the  crowd  in  this  bantering  way: 

What  went  you  out  into  the  wilderness  to  see? 

A  reed  swayed  by  the  wind? 
But  what  went  you  out  to  see? 

A  man  robed  in  soft  garments? 

Lo,  people  who  wear  gorgeous  clothing  and  live  in 
luxury  are  in  palaces. 
But  what  went  you  out  to  see  ?    A  prophet  ? 

Yes,  T  assure  you,  and  more  than  a  prophet. (^) 

The  truth  is  of  course  that  we  have  been  so  long  pre- 
occupied with  the  profound  spiritual  truth  in  the  words  of 
Jesus  that  we  have  failed  to  note  their  pungency.  Few 
teachers  have  been  so  signal  masters  of  the  art  of  packing 
a  great  thought  into  a  few  simple  words.  But  as  we  read 
further  in  the  Gospels  we  discover  that  epigram  and  para- 
dox not  infrequently  pass  over  into  hyperbole.  With  some 
persons,  exaggerated  statement  of  fact  or  truth  is  uncon- 
scious, the  result  of  over-eagerness  to  make  a  strong  im- 
pression on  hearer  or  reader;  but  Avith  others,  as  with 
Jesus,  exaggeration  is  deliberate,  in  which  case  it  is  al- 
most invariably  humorous.  Only  hopeless  intellectual 
dulness  could  take  literally  such  sayings  as : 

If  your  right  eye  causes  you  to  stumble,  ' 

Pluck  it  out  and  cast  it  from  yon.  (3) 


(M   Matt.  21:25,  etc. 

(')   Matt.  11:7:  Luke  7:24. 

{')    Matt.  5:20. 


42  rU]^JDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

The  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  numbered. (^) 

If  these  shall  hold  their  peace, 
The  very  stones  will  cry  out.(^) 

Easier  might  heaven  and  earth  pass  away 
Than  for  one  dot  of  an  i  to  lapse  from  the  Law.  (^) 

If  you  have  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  you 
will  say  to  this  mountain, 
^*^Eemove  hence  to  yonder  place/' 
And  it  will  remove.  (*) 

It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  a  needle's  eye, 
Than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God.(^) 

These  are  examples  of  that  method  of  overstatement  for 
the  sake  of  vividness,  or  with  intentional  humor,  which  is 
a  fundamental  characteristic  of  American  speech  and  writ- 
ing. We,  if  any  Western  people,  ought  to  be  able  to  com- 
prehend and  rightly  evaluate  this  Oriental  element  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus.  To  some  sober-minded  persons  even 
among  us,  however,  all  exaggeration  seems  nothing  else 
than  a  form  of  lying ;  and  to  such  it  will  therefore  appear 
to  be  a  shocking  and  irreverent  thing  to  say  of  Jesus  that 
on  any  occasion  he  exaggerated.  They  could  never  com- 
prehend the  principle  on  which  exaggeration  may  be  ethic- 
ally justifiable,  which  has  been  stated  (the  statement  is  it- 
self a  good  example  of  humorous  exaggeration)  in  this 
fashion:  ^^When  you  tell  a  lie,  tell  it  so  big  that  nobody 
will  believe  it,  and  then  it  isn't  a  lie." 

n~Matt.  10:30. 

(2)    Luke  19:40. 

(')    Luke  10:17,  etc. 

{*)  Matt.  17:20.  How  persistently  in  all  the  aj^es  men  have  mis- 
understood and  misapplied  that  saying,  as  a  literal  promise  of 
wonder-working  powers,  and  have  refused  to  see  the  grim  warning 
that  lurks  under  the  kindly  humor  of  the  saying.  Jesus  would  con- 
vey to  us,  that  the  great  thing  is  not  to  move  mountains  but  to 
have  faith,  and  the  man  who  desires  faith  in  order  that  he  may 
move  mountains  puts  himself  on  the  level  of  Simon  Magus,  and 
will  never  come  within  seeing  distance  of  the  faith. 

n   Matt.  19:24. 


JESUS    THE    rEOniET    AND    TEACHER  43 

What  interpreters  of  the  Puritan  temperament  have 
done  with  the  sayings  of  Jesus  is  matter  of  history.  See 
the  average  commentary  or  sermon  on  texts  like  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Whoever  smites  you  on  one  cheek, 
Turn  to  him  the  other  also.(^) 
Why  do  you  behold  the  splinter  in  your  brother's  eye, 
And  consider  not  the  beam  in  your  own  eye?(-) 
I  say  not  to  you,  Until  seven  times. 
But,  Until  seventy-times  seven. (^) 
For  every  idle  word  that  men  shall  speak 
They  will  give  account  in  the  Day  of  Judgment. 
For  by  your  words  you  will  be  acquitted. 
And  by  your  words  you  will  be  condemned.  (*) 

Yet  let  not  those  of  us  who  clearly  see  the  humor  in 
such  words  make  the  opposite  mistake  from  that  of  those 
who  are  blind  to  the  humor:  they  have  been  overliteral 
in  interpretation;  let  us  not  evacuate  such  words  of  all 
serious  meaning.  Take  the  last  saying  above  quoted  as  a 
test:  hyperbole,  no  doubt,  but  that  should  not  be  an  ex- 
cuse for  lightly  dismissing  it  from  our  minds  as  of  no 
consequence.  For,  though  a  humorous  saying,  it  has  a 
serious  and  profound  meaning,  that  justifies  itself  to  every 
man  of  sound  moral  sense.  Men  will  be  judged,  men  are 
daily  judged,  on  the  basis  of  character,  and  character  is 
the  net  result  of  word  and  deed.  Every  act,  every  word, 
contributes  something  to  the  result.  A  man  is  never  again 
just  the  same  man  after  he  speaks  or  does.  Each  deed  and 
word  automatically  reacts,  leaving  its  mark,  great  or  in- 
finitesimal, helping  to  fashion  character. 

To  those  unfortunates  who  lack  the  sixth  sense,  the  wit 
and  humor  of  Jesus  cannot  be  other  than  a  stumbling- 


(')  Matt.  5:38. 

(^)  Matt.  7:3. 

(')  Matt.  18:22. 

{*)  Matt.  12:3G,  37. 


44  FUXDAIVrEXTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

block.  They  will  to  the  end  of  time  be  no  more  able  to 
comprehend  him  than  was  Nicodemus.  Insisting  on  tak- 
ing the  words  of  Jesus,  as  the  French  say,  '^to  the  bottom 
of  the  letter/'  they  will  always  turn  into  foolishness  the 
wisdom  of  the  Wisest.  Understanding  of  humor,  like  the 
use  of  it  in  teaching,  is  possible  only  to  one  who  has  some- 
thing of  the  equipment  of  the  philosopher:  it  demands 
vision  broad  enough  to  take  in  the  incongruities  between 
aspiration  and  achievement,  the  contrasts  of  joy  and  sor- 
row, the  facts  of  success  and  failure,  of  sin  and  righteous- 
ness, that  make  up  human  life  and  constitute  not  only  its 
humor  but  its  pathos.  For  true  humor  is  never  far  from 
tears. 

Even  more  characteristic  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  than 
the  humor  of  hyperbole  is  a  delicate  irony,  never  absent 
long  from  his  discourses  in  the  Gospels,  that  makes  his 
words  glow  and  warm.  Of  this  character  is  the  entire 
passage  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  on  human  worries: 

Wherefore  I  say  to  you: 
Do  not  worry  afeont  your  life, 

What  you  will  eat  and  what  you  will  drink ; 
Nor  for  your  body,  what  you  will  wear. 

Is  not  life  more  than  food, 

And  the  body  than  clothing? 

Look  at  the  birds  of  the  air: 

They  sow  not,  they  reap  not, 

They  gather  not  into  barns; 
Yet  your  Heavenly  Father  feeds  them. 

Are  not  you  worth  much  more  than  they? 

And  which  of  you,  by  worrying,  can  add  to  his  life  a 
single  inch? 
Then  why  do  you  worry  about  clothing? 
Consider  well  the  lilies  of  the  field,  how  they  grow; 

They  toil  not,  nor  do  they  spin. 
But  I  tell  you,  not  even  Solomon  in  all  his  splendor  was 
robed  like  one  of  these. 


JESUS  THE  PROPHET  AXD  TEACHER         45 

Now  if  God  so  clothes  the  grass  of  the  field, 

Which  to-day  is  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  an  oven, 
Will  he  not  much  more  clothe  you  ? 

0  men  of  little  trust  !(^) 

Briefer  passages,  perhaps  less  familiar,  will  illustrate 
the  quality  quite  as  well.  What,  for  example,  could  appeal 
to  a  popular  audience  more  effectively  than  this  little  re- 
minder of  those  family  jars  that  were  doubtless  quite  as 
common  then  as  now: 

For  I  am  come  ...  to  set  the  daughter-in-law  against 
the  mother-in-law. (^) 
Cases  of  this  gentle  satiric  humor  abound  everywhere: 
Is  it  lawful  on  the  Sahhath  to  do  good  or  harm, 

To  save  life  or  kill? (^) 
They  that  are  healthy  have  no  need  of  a  doctor 
But  they  that  are  sick. 

1  am  not  come  to  call  the  righteous  to  repentance, 
But   sinners.  (*) 

He  that  is  without  sin  among  you, 
Let  him  throw  the  first  stone  at  her.(^) 

How  unanswerable,  how  wakening  of  somnolent  conscience, 
how  utterly  abashing,  that  ironic  thrust !  In  many  of  the 
parables,  this  gentle  play  of  humor  adds  greatly  to  their 
force.     For  example: 

Ndbody  sews  a  piece  of  unshrunk  cloth  on  an  old  cloak. 
For  the  patch  will  tear  away  from  tlie  cloak. 
And  a  worse  rent  follows. 
Nor  do  they  put  new  wine  into  old  skins ; 

If  they  do,  the  skins  burst  and  the  wine  run?  out. 
And  the  skins  are  spoiled; 

(')  Matt.  6:19-34:  cf.  the  somewhat  different  version  in  Luke 
12:22-34,  the  latter  thought  by  some  to  bo  nearer  to  the  original 
form  of  the  discourse. 

n    Matt.    10:35. 

(^)    Mark  3:4. 

(*)   Luke  5:31,  32. 

n   John  8 -..7- 


46  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

But  they  put  new  wine  into  fresh  skins, 
And  both  are  preserved  together. (^) 

The  parable  of  the  two  slaves,  in  which  one  is  represented 
as  refusing  to  his  fellow  the  mercy  that  his  master  has 
just  shown  him;(^)  and  that  of  the  wedding  guests  and 
their  frivolous  excuses, (^)  are  other  familiar  instances. 
Sometimes  the  irony  is  a  little  less  playful,  becomes  rather 
sharp  pointed,  just  a  pinch  of  bitter  with  the  sweet,  yet 
without  losing  its  kindliness.    As : 

If  you  were  blind,  you  would  have  no  sin ; 

But  now  you  say,  "We  see'^ — 
Your  sin  remains  !(^) 

If  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  demons, 

By  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out?(^) 

How  much  more  then  is  a  man  of  more  value  than 
a  sheep  !(^) 

Will  you  lay  down  your  life  for  me ! 

Truly,  I  tell  you  truly.  The  cock  will  not  crow 
Before  you  have  thrice  disowned  me  !(') 

Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you, 

And  you  do  not  know  me,  Philip  !(^) 

Socrates  taught  the  world  for  all  time  the  effectiveness 
of  irony  in  controversy,  but  no  more  effectively  than  Jesus. 
How  could  the  Pharisaic  opposition  to  his  teachings  be 
more  neatly  satirized  than  by  this  comparison  of  his  adver- 
saries to  the  sulky  children  whom  nothinc:  can  please  and 
w^ho  ^Svon't  play"  whatever  their  companions  do? 

To  what  shall  I  compare  this  generation? 

It  is  like  children  sitting  in  the  market-places. 
Who  call  to  their  fellows  and  say, 

(M  Matt.  9:16,  17. 

n  Matt.  18:23-25. 

(  =  )  Luke  14:15-24. 

{*)  John  9:4. 

('■)  Matt.  12:27. 

C)  Matt.  12:12. 

(■)  John  13:38. 

(»)  John  14:9. 


JESUS    THE    PEOPIIET    AND    TEACHER  47 

'''We  piped  to  you  and  you  did  not  dance ; 

We  wailed  and  you  did  not  beat  the  breast." 
For  John  came  neither  eating  nor  drinking, 

And  you  say,  "He  has  a  demon." 
The  Son  of  Man  came  eating  and  drinking, 

And  you  say,  "See !  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard, 

A  friend  of  tax-gatherers  and  outcasts.'^(^) 

One  should  be  charitable  and  gentle  in  judgment  of 
modern  interpreters  who  have  so  completely  overlooked 
this  side  of  the  Master's  teaching,  when  we  note  that  the 
delicate  point  of  his  humor  so  often  missed  its  mark  with 
his  original  hearers.  Accustomed  as  Oriental  people  are 
to  this  method,  the  average  Galilean  peasant  does  not  ap- 
pear to  have  been  a  very  humorsome  person,  and  the  aver- 
age Pharisee  w^as  quite  destitute  of  humor — or  he  could 
never  have  been  a  Pharisee !  Most  of  those  to  w^hom  Jesus 
spoke  seem  to  have  belonged  to  the  class,  still  by  far  the 
larger  part  of  mankind,  who  can  never  understand  a  hu- 
morous saying,  unless  with  it  they  w^ere  handed  a  diagram 
and  mathematical  proof  of  the  proposition.  Even  the 
Twelve  were,  as  a  Scotchman  would  say,  ^Verra  slow  on 
the  uptake."  When  Jesus  warned  them  to  ^'beware  of  the 
Pharisees'  yeast,"  it  required  an  elaborate  explanation  to 
make  them  comprehend  that  their  Master  was  talking 
about  doctrine,  not  bread.  An  incident  of  the  last  days 
affords  a  fine  illustration,  both  of  the  irony  of  Jesus  and 
the  dourness  of  spirit  that  made  his  hearers  so  incompre- 
hensive.  Tbe  throngs  and  acclamation  of  Palm  Sunday, 
the  crowds  of  eager  hearers  in  the  Temple  on  several  suc- 
c>eeding  days,  have  blinded  the  disciples  to  the  actual  situa- 
tion. So  Jesus  says  to  them,  in  effect:  "This  is  the  hour, 
not  of  triumph,  but  of  danger ;  our  enemies  are  upon  iis ; 
this  is  a  time  for  swords ;  if  your  own  safety  is  paramount, 
provide  yourselves  with  money  and  weapons."     As  usual, 

{')    Matt.  11:16-19;  Luke  7:31-34. 


48  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

when  quick  comprehension  of  a  nice  thought  was  required, 
the  disciples  entirely  misunderstood.  They  took  his  irony 
literally,  as  stupid  people  always  do,  and  replied,  ''Here 
are  two  swords."  Jesus  saw  that  it  was  vain  to  attempt  to 
penetrate  solid  ivory  and  gave  it  up,  saying,  ''It  is 
enough!" — what  is  the  use  of  my  talking  any  longer. (^) 

Although  Jesus  could  always  be  patient  with  stupidity, 
had  faith  sometimes  provoked  him  to  sharper  word?.  Tlie 
button  then  comes  off  the  foil,  and  a  deadly  thrust  is  made 
at  evil.  Irony  becomes  sarcasm,  keen,  biting,  lethal.  Of 
many  examples  these  will  suffice : 

They  bind  heavy  burdens  and  grievous  to  be  borne. 

And  lay  them  on  men's  shoulders, 
But  themselves  will  not  touch  them  with  their  finger. (-) 
You  seek  me,  not  because  you  beheld  signs, 
But  because  you  ate  the  loaves  and  were  filled.  (''') 
Give  not  a  sacred  thing  to  dogs, 

Nor  cast  your  pearls  before  swine, 
Lest  they  trample  them  under  foot 

And  turn  and  bite  you!(*) 
Can  the  blind  lead  the  blind? 
Will  not  both  fall  into  a  pit?(^) 

Why  do  you  call  me  Master,  Master 
And  do  not  the  things  that  I  say?(®) 

Yet  even  in  his  bitterest  denunciations  there  is  a  saving 
touch  of  humor — no  hardihood  of  evil  could  make  his 
words  other  than  severely  kind: 

Woe  to  you  Chorazin  ! 
Woe  to  you  Bethsaida ! 
For  had  the  mighty  works  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon 
That  have  been  done  in  you, 

rTLuke  22:35-38. 
C)   Matt.  23:4. 
(S)   John  6:26. 
(*)   Matt.  7:6. 
(»)   Luke  6:39. 
(«)    Luke  0:4G. 


S^StJS    tHE    PROPHIiT    AI^T)    TEACHER  49 

Long  ago  would  they  have  repented  in  sackcloth  and  aslies.(-) 

Woe  to  you,  teachers  of  the  Law  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites ! 
Because  you  scour  sea  and  land  to  make  a  single  proselyte, 

And  when  it  is  done, 
You  make  him  tenfold  more  a  son  of  Gehenna  than  your- 
selves !(') 

Woe  to  you,  teachers  of  the  Law  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites! 
Because  you  pay  tithe  of  mint  and  dill  and  cumin, 
And  have  neglected  the  weightier  matters  of  tlie  Law: 
Justice  and  mercy  and  faith. 

The  former  you  should  have  done. 

And  not  left  the  other  undone. 

Blind  leaders !  w^ho  strain  out  the  gnat 

And  swallow  the  camel  !(•'') 

The  sting  of  such  words  helps  us  to  understand  whence 
came  those  shouts  of  ^'Crucify  him!  Crucify  him!"  on  that 
fateful  Friday  morning  in  Jerusalem. 

IV 

The  instinct  of  the  Galilean  people  was  sound  when 
they  recognized  Jesus,  from  the  very  beginning  of  his 
ministry,  as  the  successor  of  the  prophets.  ("*)  His  disci- 
ples repeated  to  him  on  one  occasion  the  gossip  current 
among  the  people:  many  besides  Herod (')  believed  him  to 
be  John  the  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead:  others  said  he 
Avas  Elijali  or  Jeremiah  reborn  in  the  flesh:  generally  he 
was  held  to  be  ''one  of  the  prophets."  C*)  But  he  v;as  mor-- 
than  successor,  he  was  fruition,  he  was  culmination.  In 
him  prophetism  reaches  its  climax,  delivers  its  message  in 
its  fulness.      As  God's  prophet,  elesus  did  more  than  all 

rTMatt.  11:21. 

(-')   Matt.  23:15. 

(3)   Matt.  23:23,  24. 

{')    Mark  f):15.  Luke  7:16;  Matt.  14:5;  21:11  ;  Jolui  7:40. 

(  =  )    Mark  (i:14. 

C)    Matt.  0:14;  Mark  8:28;  Liiko  0:10. 


50  rUITDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

who  preceded  him  to  make  God  known,  understandable, 
lovable.  If  we  have  dwelt  long  on  the  unique  form  of 
his  teaching,  we  must  not  let  this  prevent  our  appreciation 
of  the  far  greater  import  of  the  substance. 

The  history  of  religions  is  the  record  of  an  age-long 
contest  between  prophet  and  priest,  and  the  priest  has 
nearly  always  had  the  better  of  it.  The  reason  he  that 
runs  may  read:  the  prophet  seeks  to  move  us  by  the  rav- 
ishment of  high  ideals ;  the  priest  subtly  appeals  to  us  with 
a  set  of  plain  rules.  The  prophet  is  a  mystic,  the  priest  a 
realist.  The  prophet  is  the  man  of  vision,  an  intuitional- 
ist;  the  priest  a  man  of  precedent,  a  legalist.  Prophetic 
religion  makes  a  heavy  draft  on  the  best  on  man;  priest 
religion  is  content  to  accept  man's  average — or  even  a  little 
less.  The  prophet  sets  before  men  a  rough  and  thorny 
road  leading  to  the  heights;  the  priest  opens  to  men  the 
way  of  least  resistance  along  the  plain.  Prophetic  re- 
ligion is  only  for  the  thoughtful,  the  earnest,  the  aspiring ; 
priest  religion  is  for  the  idle,  the  careless,  the  selfish. 
The  prophet  calls  for  renunciation,  so  few  heed  his  words ; 
the  priest  permits  indulgence,  and  therefore  has  a  large 
following. 

So  it  was  ever  in  Judaism.  The  prophets  enjoined  a 
new  life  of  justice,  mercy,  righteousness ;  the  priests  sought 
to  establish  a  cult,  with  machinery  for  obtaining  on  easy 
terms  God's  pardon  for  failure  to  do  what  the  stem 
prophet  exacted.  Piety  was  to  be  accepted  for  righteous- 
ness, sacrifice  for  mercy,  tithes  for  justice.  The  prophets 
said  that  God  required  of  his  worshipers  a  pure  heart; 
the  priests  said  that  he  required  clean  linen.  The  one  sort 
of  religion  cherished  as  its  ideal  social  justice,  the  welfare 
of  the  people;  the  other  was  content  with  rites  scrupu- 
lously performed  by  the  rich.  One  stood  for  democracy, 
the  other  for  aristocracy. 

The  prophets  had  always  insisted  that  the  relation  of 
man  to  God  is  personal;  the  bond  between  them  is  an 


JESUS    THE    PKOPIIET    AND    TEACHER  51 

ethical  bond.  God  is  holy;  man  must  be  righteous.  The 
priests  had  always  declared  that  the  relation  between  man 
and  God  is  mechanical,  not  vital ;  that  it  is  established  and 
maintained  by  rites  and  sacraments  mediated  by  appointed 
persons.  The  prophets  taught  that  every  man  has  direct 
approach  to  God,  and  so  is  privileged  at  any  time  or  place 
to  come  into  intimate  relations  with  him.  This  doctrine 
was  ruination  to  a  priesthood,  which  was  under  profes- 
sional obligation  to  insist  that  approach  to  God  and  for- 
giveness of  sins  can  be  had  only  through  Temple  and 
priests.  Priestly  intercession  was  therefore  a  necessity; 
God  would  not  hear  the  cries  for  mercy  of  laymen,  however 
penitent,  but  must  first  be  appeased  by  offerings  and  sac- 
rifices made  through  a  priest,  who  thus  held  the  Keys  of 
Heaven. 

Against  this  theory  of  priesthood  and  practice  of  cere- 
monial religion,  Jesus  contended  as  he  contended  against 
no  other  thing.  He  maintained  that  it  was  a  perversion 
of  the  character  of  God  and  of  religion,  the  sin  of  all  sins. 
The  great  burden  of  his  teaching  was  the  nearness  of 
God  to  men,  his  readiness  to  pardon  sin,  his  impartial  love 
for  all  his  creatures;  and  it  was  upon  this  basis  of  the 
character  of  God  as  Father  of  all  mankind  that  he 
founded  his  practical  work  as  institutor  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  nothing  else  than 
variations  in  many  keys  upon  this  one  theme.  (^)  For 
priesthood  and  all  its  pretentions,  for  its  fruits  as  incar- 
nated in  the  Pharisees,  Jesus  manifests  utmost  contempt 
and  detestation.  For  purely  formal  and  ceremonial  re- 
ligion he  reserves  his  severest  censures ;  he  does  everything 
possible  to  make  plain  that  the  prophetic  type  of  religion 
is  to  him  the  only  religion.  It  would  be  superfluous  to 
quote  passages  in  support  of  this  summary  characterization 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus ;  any  reader  who  cannot  recognize 
its  accuracy,  and  instantly  call  to  mind  a  score  of  sayings 

n"See  esp.  Matt.  5:45;  G:4,  14;  7:11 ;  cf.  Mark  11:25,  26. 


S2  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

that  justify  it,  convicts  himself  either  of  unfamiliarity 
with  the  teaching  or  of  failure  to  comprehend  it. 

His  own  work  finished,  Jesus  sends  forth  his  disciples 
into  the  world  to  jDroclaim  this  prophetic  religion,  as  the 
most  precious  truth  he  has  to  leave  with  them,  the  one 
truth  that  the  world  needs  to  learn.  And  what  do  these 
disciples  ?  They  instantly,  with  one  accord,  abandon  pro- 
phetic religion  and  devote  themselves  to  establishing  a 
new  cult — excusing  themselves,  no  doubt,  on  the  plea  that 
they  were  making  Jesus  the  centre  of  that  cult.  They 
failed  to  see  that  at  tlie  very  time  they  were  deifying  Jesus 
they  wTre  defying  him.  They  began  a  process  at  Jerusa- 
lem that  went  on  as  Christianity  advanced,  by  which  the 
idea  of  holiness  again  became  ceremonial  and  Christian 
prophets  were  transformed  into  Catholic  priests.  Follow- 
ers of  the  Christ  deserted  the  Jewish  cult  only  to  devise 
another  still  more  outrageous  in  pretensions  and  sterner  in 
spiritual  tyranny.  They  began  the  greatest  apostasy  in 
history;  they  helped  to  revive  and  make  permanent  as 
orthodoxy  of  the  ages  the  gravest  and  most  pernicious  of 
all  heresies:  that  God  is  well  pleased  by  being  worshiped 
w^ith  things  instead  of  with  hearts.  Hence,  to  this  day, 
the  splendor  of  Christian  churches  and  the  emptiness  of 
Christian  lives. 

It  lessens  the  emphasis  of  this  condemnation  but  little 
1o  urge  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus  merely  did  wliat  tho 
disciples  of  Buddha  and  other  great  religious  leaders  and 
teachers  have  invariably  done:  that  an  irresistible  ten- 
dency of  human  nature  leads  men  always  to  supplement 
religious  and  ethical  teachings  with  a  church  and  a  cult. 
Even  Comt^e,  who  hoped  that  he  had  demolished  all 
previous  religions,  felt  himself  compelled  to  invent  a  new 
cult,  which  he  called  the  worship  of  hnuianity.  True  this 
is,  no  doubt,  but  its  truth  neither  explains  nor  excuses 
tlie  immediacy  or  tlie  couipleteness  of  the  apostasy  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus.     Their  one  excuse,  such  as  it  is,  nuist 


JESUS  THE  PROPHET  AND  TEACHER 


53 


be  that  they  never  really  understood  their  Master,  and 
that  the  temporary  ascendancy  he  had  obtained  over  their 
minds  gave  place  to  the  renewed  ideas  of  their  race  and 
religion,  so  soon  as  the  power  of  his  personality  no  longer 
controlled  them.  Only  on  such  a  hypothesis  can  we  ac- 
count for  their  naive  belief  that  their  cries  of  ''Lord,  Lord'' 
were  an  equivalent  for  doing  what  he  had  commanded. 


CHAiPTER  III 

JESUS  THE  EEVEALER  OF  GOD 

No  trait  in  the  personality  of  Jesus  is  more  arresting  than 
the  greatness  of  his  claims.  Both  implicit  and  explicit 
in  his  teachings  are  assertions  of  right  to  direct  the  lives 
of  men  that^  in  the  case  of  any  other,  would  be  pronounced 
f?Tesumptuous,  extravagant  or  ridiculous.  He  is  the  one 
person  in  all  history  who  could  make  such  claims  without 
being  laughed  out  of  consideration  by  all  serious  persons. 
Why? 

We  have  already  noted  the  tone  of  authority  in  his  teach- 
ing that  astonished  his  hearers,  but  we  have  not  analyzed 
it,  nor  even  considered  it  more  than  casually.  Among  his 
injunctions  to  his  disciples  was  this: 

Be  not  called  Eabbi, 

For  One  is  your  Teacher, 
And  you  are  all  brothers.  (^) 

Such  words  can  escape  accusation  of  conceit  or  arrogance 
only  if  Jesus  was,  and  knew  himself  to  be,  the  supreme 
Teacher  of  his  time  and  of  all  time.  E'othing  but  his  pos- 
session of  such  knowledge  can  explain  or  justify  his  asser- 
tion for  himself  and  his  words  of  a  higher  sanction  than 
could  be  ascribed  to  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  Israel : 

The  Queen  of  the  South  will  rise  up  in  the  Judgment 
with  the  men  of  this  generation  and  condemn 
them, 

Because  she  came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon, 

n~Matt.  23:8. 

54 


JESUS  THE  REVEALER  OF  GOD  55 

And  see  I    One  greater  than  Solomon  is  here  ! 

]\[en  of  Xineveh  will  rise  up  in  the  Judgment  with  this 

generation  and  condemn  it. 
Because  tliey  repented  at  the  proclamation  of  Jonah, 
And  see!     One  greater  than  Jonah  is  here!(^) 

And  so,  whenever  he  saw  fit,  Jesus  asserted  and  exercised 
the  right  to  set  aside  tradition.  In  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  he  repeatedly  contrasts  his  own  teaching  with  Jew- 
ish tradition,  and  even  with  the  Law: 

You  have  heard  that  it  has  been  said. . . 
But  /  say  to  you     .     .     . 

recurs  again  and  again,  and  the  "V^  is  very  emphatic. 
Jesus  refused  to  admit  the  validity  of  the  cut-and-dried 
Pharasaic  piety;  their  parvitudes  regarding  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  he  annulled  in  a  single  phrase: 

The  Son  of  Man  is  Master  of  the  Sabbath  also. (2) 

The  punctilious  pedantry  of  rule  that  ignored  the  state  of 
affections  and  will  from  which  all  true  obedience  springs, 
and  concentrated  attention  and  effort  on  the  mere  outward 
act,  was  an  abomination  to  Jesus.  In  like  manner  he  set 
aside  the  precepts  regarding  fasting,  begun  in  the  Law 
and  greatly  elaborated  by  tradition,  sweeping  away  the 
whole  system: 

Now,  when  you  fast,  be  not  like  the  hypocrites ; 

For  they  put  on  gloomy  looks. 

So  as  to  let  men  see  they  are  fasting. 
I  tell  you  truly,  They  have  received  their  reward. 
But  when  you  fast,  anoint  your  head  and  wash  your  face, 

So  as  not  to  seem  to  men  to  fast. 

But  to  your  Father  who  is  in  secret ; 
And  your  Father,  who  sees  in  secret,  will  reward  you.(*) 


(M   Matt.  12:41,  42. 

(')   Matt.  5:27,  28;  33,  .34;  38,  39;  43,  44. 

(=>)   Mark  2:28:  Luke  6:5. 

(*)    Matt.  C:1G-18. 


oG  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

He  even  warmly  approved  the  practice  of  his  disciples,  in 
the  face  of  criticism  by  the  Pharisees,  and  made  feast  days 
of  the  fasts  of  his  people.  (/)  The  mass  of  accumulated 
tradition,  so  dear  to  the  teachers  of  his  people,  could  not 
stand  before  his  profoundly  spiritual  intuition.  This  was 
especially  true  of  those  tribal  taboos,  coming  down  from  a 
past  of  superstition  and  priestly  imposture,  that  claimed 
all  the  sanctions  of  the  Law,  but  never  had  the  slightest 
title  to  a  divine  origin.  At  one  swoop  he  made  null  and 
void  the  whole  elaborate  rules  of  ^^clean"  and  ^'unclean/' 
when  he  said : 

Not  that  which  enters  into  the  mouth  defiles  men, 
Rut  that  whicli  comes  out  of  the  mouth. (-) 

And  yet  even  this  was  not  the  sum  of  his  offending,  in 
the  eyes  of  Pharisees ;  he  deliberately  set  aside,  on  his  own 
authority  solely,  positive  precepts  of  the  Law  that  they 
regarded  as  indubitably  of  Mosaic  origin.  And  by  so  do- 
ing, he  of  course  virtually  claimed  to  be  superior  as  reli- 
gious teacher  and  lawgiver  to  Moses,  who  was  believed  to 
have  received  the  Law  directly  from  God.  Thus  Jesus 
said, 

Moses  for  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  suffered     .     .     . 

But  I  say  to  you     .     .     .(^) 
and  thereupon  laid  down  a  new  principle  regarding  di- 
vorce— or  reaffirmed   a   principle  yet  more   ancient   than 
Moses,  as  others  believe. 

Some  moderns  have  been  inclined  partially  to  excuse 
the  Pharisees,  if  not  boldly  defend  them,  on  the  ground 
that  their  fault  was  after  all  only  that  they  were  too  reli- 
gious, as  Paul  said  the  Al;henians  were.  But  this  exculpa- 
tion ignores  the  chief  clause  in  the  indictment:  Jesus  de- 
nied that  the  Pharisees  were  religious  at  alL     In  modern 


(')    Luke  5:3.3-30. 

(^)    Matt.  15;   18-20;  Mark  7:15,  18-23 

(»)   Matt.  19i3-12;  Mark  10:2-12. 


JESUS  THE  REVEALER  OF  GOD  57 

phrase,  they  did  not  practice  religion,  but  religiosity.  They 
had  a  semblance  of  piety,  but  were  strangers  to  the  real 
thing.  They  were  full  of  bounce  and  bluff.  They  were 
^^long"  on  promise,  "^short"  on  performance.  So  Jesus 
called  them  ^'hypocrites,"  actors  of  a  part,  pretenders  to 
religion  under  whose  mask  was  an  essentially  irreligious 
character.  The  case  against  Pharisaism  did  not  rest 
chiefly  on  its  officious  and  offensive  priggishness,  as  so 
many  readers  of  the  Gospels  infer,  but  on  its  confusion  of 
ethical  values.  Pharisaism  not  merely  made  the  unim- 
portant important,  which  is  vexatious,  but  not  serious;  it 
made  the  important  unimportant,  which  is  often  vexatious 
and  always  serious.     The  weighty  accusation  of  Jesus  was. 

You  leave  the  commandment  of  God 
And  hold  the  tradition  of  men.(^) 

In  proof  of  his  charge  he  specified  their  traditions  regard- 
ing ^'Corban,''  or  dedication  of  property  to  Jehovah,  the 
chicane  by  which  Pharisees  nullified  the  fifth  command- 
ment and  evaded  obligations  to  parents.  On  another  occa- 
sion, he  reproached  Pharisees  for  nullifying  the  obligation 
of  oaths  by  traditional  glosses  on  the  Law : 

Woe  to  you,  blind  leaders !     Who  say, 
"Whosoever  swears  by  the  Temple, 

It  is  naught; 
But  whosoever  swears  by  the  gold  of  the  Temple, 
He  is  bound." 
Senseless  and  blind ! 

For  which  is  greater,  the  gold. 

Or  the  Temple  that  makes  the  gold  sacred? 

x\nd  (you  say)  "Whosoever  swears  by  the  altar. 

It  is  naught; 

But  whosoever  swears  by  the  gift  on  the  altar, 
He  is  bound.'' 
Blind!     For  which  is  greater,  the  gift. 

Or  the  altar  that  makes  the  ffift  sacred? 


(')   Mark  7:8,  0,  13;  Matt.  15:3,  G. 


58  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

He  who  swears  by  the  altar. 

Swears  hy  it  and  by  everything  on  it; 
And  he  who  swears  by  the  Temple, 

S-wears  by  it  and  by  Him  who  dwells  in  it. 
And  he  who  swears  by  Heaven, 

Swears  by  the  throne  of  God 

And  by  Him  who  sits  upon  it.(^) 

Modern  Pharisaism  is  a  worthy  lineal  descendant  of 
the  ancientj  malefic,  vulpine,  ophidian.  It  also  nullifies 
the  Law  under  pretext  of  greater  piety.  To  do  this,  it 
has  invented  a  Pentalogue  of  its  own:  Thou  shalt  not 
drink  alcoholic  liquors ;  Thou  shalt  not  use  tobacco ;  Thou 
shalt  not  go  to  the  theatre;  Thou  shalt  not  play  cards; 
Thou  shalt  not  dance.  And  in  most  of  our  highly  "Chris- 
tian" circles,  if  a  man  but  flaunts  his  obedience  of  these 
five  w^ords  of  man  he  may  with  impunity  flout  all  Ten 
Commandments  of  God. 

If  Jesus  precisely  appreciated  the  spiritual  condition  of 
the  ancient  Pharisees,  what  shall  be  said  of  the  modem? 
Shall  we  say,  as  he  said,  that  the  outcasts  of  society  are 
entering  into  the  Kingdom,  while  the  sons  of  the  Kingdom 
are  shut  into  the  outer  darkness  ?  Certainly  it  is  a  fact 
that  the  lives  of  a  great  part  of  those  who  flatter  themselves 
that  they  are  "saved"  are  sordid  and  selfish  and  unutter- 
ably small  and  mean.  Willingness  to  renounce  self,  to 
give  life  for  others,  is  quite  as  often  found  among  "sin- 
ners" as  among  "saints."  Of  our  friends  and  neighbors, 
how  often  the  stingiest,  crossest,  most  annoying,  least  oblig- 
ing, are  members  of  churches  "in  good  standing,"  while 
some  of  the  finest  people  w^e  have  ever  known  make  no 
particular  boast  of  having  any  religion.  Is  a  "salvation" 
that  does  so  little  for  men  and  women  in  this  world,  that 
so  palpably  fails  to  make  them  better  members  of  the 
family,  better  neighbors,  better  in  business  relations,  a 
thing  really  worth  while  ?  Does  the  character  of  the  aver- 
age "Christian"  afford  good  ground  for  hope  that  he  will 

{')   Matt.    23:16-22. 


JESUS  THE  REVEALER  OF  GOD  59 

fare  better  in  the  next  world  tlian  an  ^^unsaved"  man  of 
average  decency?  When  the  sheep  come  to  be  divided 
from  the  goats  there  will  be  great  surprises,  for  that  line 
of  division  will  not  run  along  conventional  ecclesiastical 
lines. 


II 

'Not  only  some  but  all  the  words  of  Jesus,  not  his  w^ords 
merely  but  his  deeds  also,  imply  possession  of  this  unique 
character  and  authority.  He  never  sought  honor  of  men, 
but  he  accepted  as  his  due  their  homage  and  their  recogni- 
tion of  his  singular  and  transcendent  personality,  when 
these  were  spontaneously  offered  him.  Instances  that  will 
at  once  suggest  themselves  to  readers  of  the  Gospels  are : 

You  are  God's  Son, 

You   are    Israel's   King;(^) 

You  are  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God;(^) 
and  the  exclamation  of  the  hitherto  doubting  Thomas, 

My  Master  and  my  God!(^) 

Of  the  same  order  were  the  acclamations  of  the  multitudes 
at  his  entry  into  Jerusalem: 

Hosannah  to  the  Son  of  David ! 

Happy  he  that  comes  in  Jehovah's  name.(*) 

Jesus  was  not  content,  however,  with  merely  accepting 
such  tributes:  he  explicitly  avowed  himself  to  be  Son  of 
God,  in  some  exceptional  and  extraordinary  sense,   tliiu. 
other  men  could  not  claim  for  themselves : 
Before  Abraham  was  boi'u,  I  am.(^) 


')  John    1:40. 

')  Matt.    1G:16. 

')  John   20:28. 

*)  Matt.    21:9. 

=^)  John  8:58. 


(iO  rUNt>AMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

I  and  the  Father  are  one.(^) 

He  that  has  seen  me  has  seen  the  Father.  (-) 

It  is  true  that  the  most  explicit  of  these  declarations  are 
found  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  on  the  historical  accuracy  of 
which  more  doubt  lias  been  thrown  by  modern  criticism 
than  on  the  Synoptics:  yet  the  words  in  John  are  little 
more  precise  in  assertion  than  these  in  Matthew : 

All  things   have  been  delivered  to  me  by   my  Father, 

And  no  one  knows  the  Son,  save  the  Father ; 
Nor  does  any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son, 

And  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  wills  to  reveal  him.("') 

And  at  the  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin,  according  to  the 
first  Gospel,  the  high  priest  demanded  of  Jesus  on  his 
oath  the  truth  about  his  mission:  ^^I  adjure  you,  by  the 
living  God,  to  tell  us  whether  you  are  the  Messiah,  the 
Son  of  God."  And  under  the  sanctity  of  that  oath,  well 
knowing  that  he  was  condemning  himself  to  death,  Jesus 
made  reply,  "You  have  said" — a  strong  affirmative  in  the 
idiom  of  liis  people.  (^)  There  is  no  real  difference, 
therefore,  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  first  or  third 
in  this  recognition  of  the  unique  Sonsbip  of  Jesus. 

And  therefore,  especially  in  the  case  of,  critics  unwilling 
to  accept  this  idea  of  the  unique  Sonship,  serious  doubt 
has  been  suggested  whether  in  any  of  these  accounts  we 
have  trustworthy  words  of  Jesus — some  have  even  gone 
so  far  as  to  deny  that  anything  more  than  a  few  detached 
sayings  can  with  certainty  be  attributed  to  him.  Even 
the  most  destructive  of  critics  have  not  ventured  to  ques- 
tion the  authenticity  of  a  baker's  dozen  or  so  of  the  words 
ascribed  to  Jesus  in  the  Synoptics ;  on  the  ground,  as  they 
admit,  that  these  are  of  such  character  that  they  cannot  be 

n~John  10:29;  cf.  10:35,  36. 
(-)    John  14:9. 

(■'}    Matt.  11:27;  cf.  Luke  10:22. 
(*)    Matt.  2(1: 04. 


JESUS  THE  KEVEALEIl  OF  GOB  Gl 

rationally  supposed  to  have  been  invented  and  fathered  on 
Jesus  by  his  contemporaries  or  by  a  later  generation.  That 
is  a  sound  critical  principle;  and  a  just  application  of  it 
will  be  found  to  validate  the  greater  part  of  the  reported 
sayings  of  Jesus,  not  a  few  merely. 

The  words  of  Jesus  must  be  accepted  as  his,  because  of 
most  it  may  be  fairly  said  that  we  cannot  rationally  sup- 
pose them  to  have  been  invented  by  men  who  believed 
precisely  the  contrary,  as  practically  all  his  generation 
did.  And  more:  with  certain  few  exceptions,  men  have 
gone  on  believing  the  contrary  to  the  present  moment. 
The  disciples  of  Jesus  were  devoted  to  his  person,  but  his 
gospel  never  penetrated  their  minds.  They  heard,  they 
remembered,  they  recorded,  but  tliey  never  understood, 
much  less  believed.  One  of  the  plainest  things  in  the 
Gospels  is  that  there  was  no  intellectual  contact  between 
Jesus  and  those  who  heard  his  message.  Even  the  Twelve 
failed  to  comprehend :  to  the  last  he  had  no  real  disciples. 
Nineteen  centuries  before  Hegel  he  might  have  uttered 
that  philosopher's  plaintive  words :  ^'Only  one  living  man 
understands  me — and  he  misunderstands!"  This  may  well 
be  our  ground  of  confidence  in  the  substantial  accuracy  of 
the  reports :  it  would  have  been  manifestly  out  of  the  ques- 
tion for  the  followers  of  Jesus  to  have  originated  sayings 
that  they  never  understood  and  on  wliich  they  promptly 
turned  their  backs. 

But  if  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  main  must  be  ac- 
cepted as  his,  for  the  conclusive  reason  that  the  invention 
of  them  by  his  disciples  is  an  intellectual  and  moral  im- 
possibility, there  is,  as  has  already  been  noted,  one  impor- 
tant exception :  the  apocalyptic  discourses  attributed  to 
him.  The  principal  discourse  of  this  character  belongs  to 
the  last  teachings  in  the  Temple,  and  is  said  to  have  been 
given  in  response  to  questions  that  his  disciples  were  led  to 
ask  by  a  prediction  of  Jesus  that  a  time  was  soon  comins; 
in  wdiich  not  one  stone  of  that  building,  the  pride  of  all 


62  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

Jews,  would  be  left  upon  another.  The  simplest  form  of 
this  discourse  is  in  Mark,  chapter  thirteen,  but  it  is  re- 
edited  and  much  enlarged  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  Some 
parts  of  the  Marcan  discourse  may  have  been  uttered  by 
Jesus,  in  relation  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  to  foresee 
w^hich  required  no  supernatural  prophetic  gift.  Judea  was 
seething  with  disaffection  toward  the  Roman  rule,  and  a  re- 
bellion was  morally  certain  to  come ;  and  one  who  had  an 
idea  of  the  irresistible  power  of  Rome  in  that  age  could  not 
be  doubtful  of  the  result  of  such  a  clash.  But  the  rest  of  the 
discourse  so  exactly  corresponds  to  the  ideas  of  the  age,  has 
so  many  features  in  common  with  Jewish  apocalypses,  is  so 
in  harmony  with  the  later  preaching  of  the  apostles,  that 
we  have  here  the  only  part  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  that 
his  disciples  were  competent  to  invent  and  send  forth  to 
the  world  under  the  authority  of  his  name.  We  cannot 
doubt,  when  we  compare  this  discourse  with  those  that  we 
have  such  solid  reasons  for  accepting  as  genuine,  and  noting 
the  wide  difference  in  tone  and  viewpoint,  that  it  is  mainly 
the  work  of  the  disciples,  who  were  inspired  to  undertake 
it  by  a  few  words  of  Jesus  that  they  misinterpreted.^ 
This  conclusion  is  strengthened  when  we  find  on  turning 
back  to  the  earlier  teaching  and  studying  it  again  with 
this  thought  in  mind,  we  find  occasional  evidences  that 
the  first  Gospel  especially  apocalyptizes  some  of  these 
earlier  teachings.  (^) 

Before  passing  on,  one  other  thing  is  worthy  of  note. 
Some  of  the  modern  interpreters  of  Jesus  insist  that  he 

O  My  critics  have  a  bad  habit  of  accusing  me  of  ignorance  of 
every  book  or  idea  that  I  do  not  choose  to  mention  in  my  writings. 
May  I  then  enter  here  this  caveat,  as  a  la^A^er  would  say:  I  am  not 
ignorant  of  the  books  of  Schweitzer,  Bousset  and  others,  which  main- 
tain the  eschatological  discourses  of  Jesus  to  be  his  best  authenti- 
cated words  and  his  most  characteristic  teachings.  From  which 
follows  logically  enough  their  theory  of  Interimsethik.  To  discuss 
adequately  the  reasons  for  rejecting  this  view  would  require  the 
writing  of  another  volume,  at  least  as  large  as  this. 

(2)  For  example,  compare  Matt.  16:28  with  Luke  9:27  and 
Mark  9:1. 


JESUS  THE  EEVEALER  OF  GOD  DO 

did  not  put  into  his  utterances  the  fulness  of  meaning 
that  the  present  generation  thinks  it  finds  there.  In  other 
words,  we  idealize  Jesus  too  much.  But  if  this  were  true, 
were  it  not  sufficiently  wonderful  that  a  religious  teacher 
gave  the  world  a  mould  into  which  twenty  centuries  have 
been  pouring  their  spiritual  ideas,  without  either  over- 
flowing or  breaking  it  ?  If  we  have  new  religious  thoughts, 
we  do  not  need  for  their  adequate  expression  other  words 
than  Jesus  has  given  us.  Surely  this  sets  him  apart  as  the 
unapproachable  Teacher  of  the  world.  Yet,  is  not  rather 
this  the  truth :  so  far  from  reading  into  the  words  of  Jesus 
spiritual  wealth  imdreamt  of  by  him,  we  have  not  yet 
plumbed  the  depths  of  meaning  that  are  really  there  ? 

Ill 

Just  as  the  form  of  his  teaching  was  shaped  by  his  life 
among  the  peasants  of  Galilee,  so  its  substance  was  the 
product  of  the  religious  experience  of  Jesus.  From  early 
childhood  he  would  no  doubt  be  instructed  in  the  Law  and 
Prophets,  like  every  Jewish  child.  The  quickness  with 
which  he  was  able,  on  occasion,  to  cite  an  apposite  passage 
from  these  writings  is  convincing  testimony  to  the  thor- 
oughness of  his  instruction.  A  writer  may  think  out  and 
look  up  citations  at  his  leisure,  but  they  must  come  in- 
stantly to  a  speaker's  mind  or  not  at  all.  Jesus  seems  also 
to  have  acquired  in  some  way  considerable  knowledge  of 
rabbinic  tradition,  though  never  under  formal  instruction, 
but  its  only  effect  on  him  was  to  produce  disgust  and  revul- 
sion. His  progress  in  religious  knowledge  was  normal  and 
regular,  and  he  was  never  compelled  in  later  years  to  un- 
learn what  he  had  learned  earlier,  as  all  his  disciples  more 
or  less  had  to  do. 

And  yet  we  may  be  sure  that  what  Jesus  learned  was  the 
least  part  of  his  religious  knowledge.  The  really  signifi- 
cant and  valuable  part  he  obtained  from  no  luiman  teacher, 


64  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CIIKISTIANITY 

but  from  private  meditation,  and  from  prayer,  through 
which  he  entered  into  fellowship  with  God  such  as  no  other 
man  had  ever  known.  The  story  in  Luke's  Gospel  of  his 
visit  to  the  Temple  at  the  age  of  twelve  is  something  more 
than  the  instance  of  religious  precocity  for  which  it  is 
usually  taken:  it  is  a  hint  of  the  early  da^vning  of  that 
consciousness  of  unique  relationship  to  God  which  he  after- 
wards expressed  in  ''Father"  and  ''Son."  This  sense  of 
intimate  and  unbroken  fellowship  with  God,  of  complete 
harmony  with  God's  will,  became  the  fundamental  fact  of 
his  consciousness.  Out  of  the  deeps  of  that  experience  he 
spoke  to  men  of  the  Father  in  Heaven,  in  hope  of  bring- 
ing them  also  into  fellowship  with  him — 

We  speak  what  we  know, 
And  bear  testimony  of  what  we  have  seen, 
And  you  do  not  receive  our  testimony.  (^) 

All  that  Jesus  said  about  God  came  from  the  heart  of 
his  personal  experience.  To  him  God  was  never  a  Mon- 
arch, ruling  over  subjects  whose  only  right  is  the  right  to 
obey;  nor  yet  a  Judge,  before  whom  sinful  man  is  ar- 
raigned to  answer  for  his  misdeeds,  meting  out  punishment 
in  proportion  to  transgression;  but  a  Father,  whose  love 
for  his  children  is  as  immeasurable  as  his  Being,  whose 
mercy  is  therefore  everlasting.  "This  is  the  heart  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus,  that  Man  and  every  man  is  the  child  of 
God,  that  the  spirit  which  we  are  is  one  with  the  Spirit 
whose  we  are."(^)  This  is  beyond  compare  the  greatest 
gift  of  Jesus  to  the  world,  this  new  conception  of  the 
character  of  God  and  his  relation  to  all  mankind.  His 
relation  to  the  world,  and  his  immutable  righteousness, 
the  Hebrew  prophets  had  taught  clearly  enough.  Even 
the  enlightened  heathen  were  not  ignorant  on  this  point. 
Socrates  maintained  strenuously  that  God  is  not  the  author 

C)   John    3:11,    32. 

(-)  Francis  A.  Henrv,  "Jesus  and  the  Christian  Religion,"  p.  58, 
New   York,   191G.  * 


JESLTS  THE  REVEALEK  OF  GOD  Bf) 

of  evil,  but  ouly  of  the  good.(')  What  the  world  was  hun- 
gering to  hear  was  this  assurance  of  the  universal  Father- 
hood of  God. 

Header,  can  you  think  back  far  enough  into  your  child- 
hood days  to  realize  for  a  little  what  the  name  "father" 
once  meant  to  you  ?  Why,  father  was  the  greatest  man  in 
the  world — you  pitied  other  boys  who  had  to  get  on  sonic- 
how^  with  the  kind  of  fathers  they  had!  Father  knew 
everytliing,  father  could  do  anything,  father  Avould  always 
take  care  of  his  boy  and  see  that  he  came  to  no  harm.  And 
father  was  always  bringing  home  the  most  marvelous 
things,  he  could  make  the  most  surprising  contrivances, 
he  could  teach  the  most  amusing  games  and  tell  the  most 
fascinating  stories.     O  father  was  a  wonder ! 

And  wdiat  Jesus  meant  to  teach  ns  children  of  a  larger 
growth  was  to  look  up  to  Our  Father  in  Heaven,  and  think 
of  him  in  like  terms.  The  fountain  of  all  wisdom,  the 
source  of  all  power,  tenderly  caring  for  his  little  ones, 
showering  gifts  upon  even  the  ungrateful,  forbearing 
towards  the  sinful,  merciful  towards  the  penitent — such, 
said  Jesus,  is  your  Father-God.  He  wished  to  reawaken 
the  trust  of  which  advancing  years  and  what  we  call  world- 
ly Avisdom  have  bereft  us;  he  urged  ns  to  "receive  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  as  a  little  child,"  as  the  only  way  by 
which  w^e  can  possibly  enter  in  and  possess  its  glories. 
Jesus  did  not  repudiate  or  deny  or  belittle  any  truth  re- 
garding God  that  the  Jews  had  attained :  he  enriched  their 
knowledge,  he  "revealed  the  wdiole  truth,  opened  the  whole- 
ness of  truth." (") 

The  worst  foes  of  Jesus  have  ever  been,  as  he  himself 
phrased  it,  "they  of  his  own  household."  Worse  than  all 
attacks  on  his  teaching  by  unbelievers  have  been  misrep- 
resentations  of   it   b}^   professed   believers.      To   this   day 

(M    Plato's  ''Republic,"  bk  ii,  §379. 

i^)  (iloorcre  Harris,  "A  Century's  ("hango  in  Religion."  p.  71,. 
Boston,    1914. 


Q()  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

many  Christian  theologians  and  preachers  vehemently 
deny  that  Jesus  ever  intended  to  teach  the  universal  father- 
hood of  God.  In  this  they  become  the  allies  of  a  destruc- 
tive school  of  criticism,  which  maintains  that  Paul  and  not 
Jesus  was  the  true  founder  of  Christianity,  the  first  to 
teach  universalism  in  religion.  But  if  the  historic  inter- 
pretation of  Paul  is  correct,  he  taught  no  real  universal- 
ism: his  is  a  limited  universalism  of  races  and  nations, 
while  as  to  individuals  he  taught  the  narrowest  sort  of 
particularism,  an  election  of  a  few  to  salvation  and  con- 
demnation of  the  greater  number  to  perdition. 

As  we  shall  see  later,  this  interpretation  does  Paul  great 
injustice;  he  is  fairly  entitled  to  the  praise  of  being  the 
most  powerful  advocate  of  universalism  among  the  first 
generation  of  Christians.  The  Twelve,  if  left  to  them- 
selves, would  never  have  taught  or  practiced  universalism, 
and  would  have  made  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  nothing 
more  than  an  obscure  Jewish  sect.  This  is  the  clear  testi- 
mony of  the  Christian  documents.  But  this  merely  es- 
tablishes the  fact  that  Paul,  who  probably  never  saw  the 
face  of  Jesus,  understood  him  better  in  this  fundamental 
matter  than  his  most  intimate  companions.  But  the  docu- 
ments also  make  the  fact  indisputable  that  Jesus  first 
taught  what  Paul  afterwards  so  successfully  championed, 
and  that  our  religion  is  rightly  named  Christianity  and 
not  Paulinism.  Our  tlieology  is  another  question  alto- 
gether. 

It  is  quite  possible  to  quote  some  words  of  Jesus  that 
seem  inconsistent  with  the  view  here  adopted,  such  as  his 
address  to  the  Twelve  when  he  sent  them  out  to  proclaim 
the  Good  News  of  the  Kingdom : 
Into  a  way  of  the  heathen  go  not, 
And  a  town  of  the  Samaritans  enter  not ; 
But  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  IsraeFs  house. (^) 

But  this  was  a  special  mission,  necessarily  confined  to  a 

{')   Matt.   10:6. 


JESUS  THE  KEVEALEK  OF  GOD  67 

limited  sphere,  and  the  injunction  merely  indicates  that 
the  time  for  larger  proclamation  of  the  Good  News  of  the 
Kingdom  had  not  yet  come,  and  does  not  imply  purpose 
to  restrict  the  Kingdom  to  Jews.  It  may  also  be  con- 
ceded that  other  Avords  of  Jesus,  sometimes  cited  to  prove 
a  larger  aim  than  a  mere  national  and  racial  gospel,  are 
not  altogether  decisive:    such  as, 

The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man.(^) 
The  tax-gatherers  and  harlots  go  into  the  Kingdom  of 
God  before  you.(^) 

But  there  are  declarations  not  at  all  reconcilable  with 
the  notion  that  Jesus  taught  the  Jewish  religion  of  ex- 
clusiveness : 

Many  will  come  from  the  east  and  the  west, 

And  will  sit  down  with  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  in 

the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
But  the  Sons  of  the  Kingdom  will  be  cast  forth  into  tJie 

outer  darkness.  (^) 

You  are  the  salt  of  the  earth, 
You  are  the  light  of  the  world.  (■*) 

More  than  once  Jesus  recognized  the  superior  receptiveness 
of  the  gentiles,  as  wdien  he  declared  to  the  nobleman,  ^'I 
have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel." (^)  It' 
we  may  not  plead  as  evidence,  because  of  their  doubtful 
authenticity,  Matthew's  words  of  the  Great  Commission, 
^^Go  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations"  (or  gen- 
tiles),(^)  we  are  not  so  enjoined  from  citing  the  words 
preserved  by  Luke,  essentially  identical  in  meaning: 

rTMark  2:27. 

(-)    Matt.  21:31. 

(»)   Matt.  8:11,  12. 

(*)    Matt.  5:13,  14. 

(»)    Matt.  8:10;  Luke  7:9. 

(•)    Matt.  28:10. 


68  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

You  will  be  my  witnesses^ 

Both  in  Jenisalem, 

And  in  all  Judea  and  Samaria, 
And  to  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth. (^) 

And  most  significant  of  all,  perhaps,  is  the  fact  that  the 
universal  ism  of  Jesus  is  the  reason  assigned  by  Luke  for 
his  rejection  at  his  own  home,  ISTazareth.  As  the  third 
Gospel  relates  the  story,  Jesus  told  the  Jews  plainly  that 
they  were  not  God's  "chosen"  people,  in  any  such  sense 
as  to  exclude  other  peoples  from  his  love  and  mercy.  And 
the  worst  of  it  was,  that  he  proved  his  point  from  their  own 
Scriptures.  He  cited  the  instance,  familiar  to  every  one 
of  them,  of  Elisha's  lodging  with  a  poor  widow  of  Zarc- 
phath,  and  followed  this  with  the  equally  familiar  story  of 
the  cure  of  ^aaman  of  leprosy.  (^) 

Yet,  after  all,  our  reliance  should  be  on  the  general 
drift  and  spirit  of  the  teachings,  rather  than  on  any 
isolated  "proof-texts"  that  can  be  made  to  mean  pretty 
much  anything  we  desire  them  to  mean.  The  significance 
of  most  of  the  parables  is  unmistakable.  If  we  might  per- 
vert into  a  narrow  sense  such  as  those  in  the  fifteenth  chap- 
ter of  Luke — the  Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost  Coin,  the  Lost 
Son — we  cannot  so  easily  limit  the  Sower  and  the  Tares, 
with  the  interpretation  of  Jesus  himself,  "The  field  is  the 
words.^r^)  The  Sheep  and  the  Goats,  the  Talents,  the 
Wise  and  Foolish  Virgins, (^)  and  above  all  the  Good 
Samaritan, (^)  are  incapable  of  perversion  to  Jewish  ex- 
clusiveness.     In  the  last  named  parable,  Jesus  makes  a 

(M   Acts  1:8. 

(2)    Luke  4:10-30. 

(^)   Matt.  13:3  sq.  18  sq.  24  sq.  and  the  pavallol  passa.ffos. 

{*)  Matt.  13:3S.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  author  or 
final  editor  of  the  first  Gospel  was  not  a  hearty  universalist.  He 
shows  in  many  cases  a  disposition  to  edit  the  sayinfjs  in  a  particu- 
laristic sense.  Compare,  for  example,  his  story  of  the  Syro-Phene- 
cian  woman,  with  the  version  of  Mark,  as  f]^iven  in  any  Harmony, 
and  likewise  his  version  and  Luke's  of  the  sermon  at  Nazareth.  Yet 
Matthew  aives  most  of  the  parables  that  have  a  universal  trend. 

n   Luke  10:30  sq. 


JESUS  THE  REVEALER  OF  GOD  69 

member  of  a  despised  and  Lated  race  a  better  exemplar  of 
true  religion  than  the  most  pious  Jews,  priests  and  Levites. 
This  must  indeed  have  been  gall  and  bitterness : 

The  fourth  Gospel  is  so  outspoken  in  its  universality 
that  not  a  few  critics  have  made  this  an  objection  to  its 
authenticity : 

For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten 

Son, 
Tliat  whosoever  trusts  in  him  should  not  perish. 
But  have  eternal  life.(^) 

^'^Miosoever''  is  a  word  very  prominent  in  the  Johannine 
writings,  and  its  content  is  as  large  as  humanity.  So  when 
certain  Greeks  sought  the  disciples  in  the  Temple,  wishing 
to  see  Jesus,  the  Master  hailed  this  as  the  climax  of  his 
career : 
The  hour  is  come  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  be  honored. (-) 

It  may,  of  course,  be  argued  by  the  champions  of  Paul 
or  others  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was  not  written  until  many 
years  after  the  great  apostle  to  the  gentiles  had  made  uni- 
versalism  part  and  parcel  of  the  Gospel.  No  one  will 
question  the  historic  fact  that  it  was  through  Paul  mainly 
that  the  principle  of  universalism  gained  general  accep- 
tance; but  that  is  quite  a  different  proposition  from  as- 
serting that  he  invented  the  principle.  He  never  claimed 
to  do  so,  but  in  this,  as  in  all  his  preaching,  asserted  that 
he  was  the  interpreter  and  ambassador  of  Jesus.  The 
fourth  Gospel  at  least  shows  how  Christians  had  come,  by 
the  close  of  the  first  century,  to  understand  the  teachings 
of  Jesus — that  they  were  by  that  time  vuuxnimous  in  at- 
tributing the  universalism  oi  their  message  to  Je^ns  and 
not  to  Paul. 


(^)   John  3:16. 
(')   John  12:23. 


70  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

IV 

As  life  Avitli  God  was  the  secret  of  the  character  of  Jesus, 
so  love  of  God  is  the  foundation-stone  of  his  teaching. 
To  love  his  Father  in  Heaven  was  the  spontaneous  im- 
pulse of  his  pure  soul,  which  found  in  God  the  companion- 
ship and  sympathy  denied  it  among  men.  Every  word 
and  act  of  his  life  was  a  manifestation  of  this  love — 

My  food  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me, 
And  to  accomplish  his  work.(^) 

When,  therefore,  Jesus  was  asked,  ^'What  is  the  first 
commandment  of  the  Law  ?"  without  hesitation  he  repeated 
the  words,  the  Shema  of  the  synagogue  service : 

Hear  0  Israel: 

Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah : 

And  thou  shalt  love  Jehovah  thy  God  with  all  the  heart, 
And  with  all  the  soul, 
And  with  all  the  mind, 
And  with  all  the  strength! (2) 
And  because  Jesus  saw  that  if  God  were  so  loved,  as  a 
merciful  and  tender  and  holy  Father,  there  could  be  but 
one  result,  he  gave  as  the  second  commandment,   again 
quoting  familiar  words  of  the  Law : 

Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself. (^) 


(^)    John   4:34. 

C)   Mark    12:29;    Deut.    6:4,    5. 

C)  Mark  12:31;  Lev.  19:18.  To  Matthew  Arnold  it  seemed 
passing?  strange  to  find  these  words  in  Leviticus,  but  that  was  be- 
cause he  did  not  fully  understand  their  significance  there.  In 
Leviticus  the  words  are  clan  ethics — "neighbor"  is  another  Jew; 
as  Jesus  spoke  them,  they  are  universal  ethics,  "neighbor"  is  any 
fellow  man.  Inasmuch  as  Jesus  did  thus  quote  from  the  Law  to 
express  his  own  profoundest  teaching,  all  modern  Jews  and  some 
modern  Christians,  deny  his  originality.  He  is  not  the  one  and 
only  Teacher,  they  declare,  but  the  last  in  a  long  line  of  Jewish 
prophets,  and  if  his  outlook  seems  a  little  broader  and  further,  it 
is  not  so  much  that  he  is  greater  as  that  he  is  later.  As  somebody 
has  said,  "A  dwarf  can  see  further  than  a  giant — if  he  is  mounted 
on  the  shoulders  of  the  giant."  We  need  not  pause  to  controvert 
this  view. 


JESUS  THE  REVEALER  OF  GOD  71 

.  Fatherhood  and  hrotherhood,  thuu,  were  correlative  and 
complementary  ideas  and  words  with  Jesus.  Love  of  God 
necessarily  implied  love  of  fellow,  and  the  two  constituted 
the  principle  of  the  Kingdom  of  God :  a  human  society  of 
which  God  was  founder  and  head  and  all  men  members; 
bound  together,  not  by  law^s  and  institutions,  but  by  the 
stronger,  if  less  palpable,  tie  of  human  brotherhood.  A 
Kingdom  would  seem  logically  to  imply  a  king  and  sub- 
jects, but  Jesus  never  uses  either  word,  or  anything  equiv- 
alent to  them.  God  is  not  King  but  Father ;  men  are  not 
subjects  but  chihlren — that  is  his  way  of  describing  both; 
and  this  is  a  fact  that  is  unimpeachable  testimony  to  his 
habitual  thought  of  God. 

And  it  is  equally  fact  that  Jesus  had  little  to  say  about 
man's  relations  and  duties  to  God;  he  confined  himself 
mainly  to  men's  duties  and  relations  to  each  other.  What 
he  did  say  about  worship  and  service  of  God  was,  that  it 
might  not  be  suffered  to  take  the  place  of  justice  and 
mercy  to  our  fellows.  Nothing  so  stirred  Jesus  to  holy 
indignation  as  pretense  of  piety  by  men  who  robbed  and 
maltreated  those  whom  they  should  have  loved  and  served 
as  brothers.  To  the  outcast  sinner  he  was  always  tender, 
and  to  such  of  these  as  showed  desire  to  forsake  their  sins 
he  spoke  words  of  peace  and  pardon.  To  the  sinful  w^oman 
who  anointed  his  feet  and  kissed  them  weeping,  he  said, 
"Your  sins  are  forgiven" — she  had  learned  love  and  was 
"saved."  To  Zaccheus,  eager  to  make  restitution  to  any 
whom  he  had  wronged,  he  said,  "To-day  has  salvation 
come  to  this  house" — the  grafting  tax-gatherer  had  learned 
social  righteousness  and  so  had  become  a  new  man.  But 
for  the  proud  Pharisee  Jesus  had  only  words  that  sting 
and  burn.  Forms  and  creeds  were  nothing  to  him;  he 
looked  straight  through  them  to  the  reality. 

Jesus  summoned  all  men  to  the  noble  life:  the  life  of 
personal  purity,  of  sacrifice  of  self,  of  service  to  others, 
as  the  one  cure  for  tlio  world's  otherwise  immedicable  ills. 


72  FUNDAMENTALS  OF   CHKISTIANITY 

He  appealed  to  the  heroic  strain  not  wholly  lacking  in  any 
of  us.  Wickedness  was  in  his  eyes  nothing  else  than  the 
ignoble  life,  the  self-centered  life,  and  this  was  the  only 
"heresy"  that  he  recognized. 

The  Law  came  hy  Moses, 

But  grace  and  truth  by  Jesus  Christ. (^) 

If  we  accept  the  words  of  Jesus  as  the  guide  of  life,  he 
becomes  our  Saviour  from  the  theologians,  as  well  as  our 
Saviour  from  sin.  For  theologians  of  all  ages  have,  wit- 
tingly or  unwittingly,  led  men  back  to  the  Pharisaic  notion 
that  right  belief  is  the  all-important  thing,  w^hereas  with 
Jesus  right  conduct  is  all-important.  And  the  theologian 
has  justified  himself  on  the  ground  that  belief  determines 
conduct,  and  therefore  to  have  right  conduct  you  must 
first  have  right  belief.  Which  is  true  to  a  degree,  but 
leaves  unstated  this  yet  more  weighty  truth :  right  belief 
may  be  necessary  to  right  conduct,  but  is  no  guarantee  of 
right  conduct.  The  belief  of  the  Pharisees  w^as  mainly 
right ;  their  conduct  was  wholly  wrong,  and  so  Jesus  con- 
demned them.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  Jesus 
never  intended  to  make  "salvation,"  or  deliverance  from 
moral  evil,  dependent  upon  any  theory  of  what  he  was  or 
did.  He  made  it  depend  on  a  changed  attitude  towards 
God  and  man,  and  it  was  his  chief  mission  to  be  the  means 
of  so  changing  the  relations  of  men  to  God  that  His  will 
should  be  done  upon  the  earth  and  thereby  His  Kingdom 
be  established. 

'No,  we  cannot  get  away  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  said 
very  little  about  beliefs,  that  he  spoke  almost  wholly  of 
conduct.  He  made  the  real  test  of  character,  the  real 
righteousness,  consist  in  the  behavior  of  men  towards  their 
fellows.  If  he  does  not  say  it  in  so  many  words,  he  every- 
where implies,  that  if  a  man  is  in  right  relations  to  his 
fellows  he  cannot  be  in  wrong  relations  to  God.     And  he 

n~Jolin    1:17. 


JESUS  THE  REVEALER  OF  GOD  73 

does  say,  in  just  so  many  words,  that  a  man  cannot  be  in 
right  relation  to  God,  so  long  as  he  leaves  nnrighted  a 
wrong  done  to  a  fellow.  The  remedy  for  injury  to  a 
fellow  man  is  not  prayers  and  gifts  to  God — what  men 
call  piety — but  restitution,  redress,  apology.  When  David 
had  stolen  Uriah's  wife  and  murdered  her  husband,  his 
repentance  was  wholly  inadequate  when  he  declared : 

Against  Thee,  Thee  only,  have  I  sinned, 
And  done  this  evil  in  Thy  sight.  (^) 

That  might  have  answered  the  ethical  demands  of  an 
earlier  time,  but  Jesus  taught  a  very  different  ethic : 

So,  if  you  are  bringing  your  gift  to  the  altar, 

And  there  remember  that  your  brother  has  something 

against  you, 
Leave  your  gift  there  before  the  altar 

And  go  your  way — 
First  be  reconciled  to  your  brother, 

And  then  come  and  offer  your  gift.(") 

It  is  perhaps  in  his  parables  that  Jesus  illustrates  most 
clearly,  certainly  most  strikingly,  the  behavior  appropriate 
to  members  of  his  Kingdom.  The  Good  Samaritan  ('M 
will  instantly  occur  to  every  one.  Hardly  less  known  is 
tlie  parable  of  the  Sheep  and  the  Goats, (*)  wlierein  the 
ultimate  test  of  character  and  determination  of  final  des- 
tiny is  made  to  depend  on  mercy  and  kindness  shown  to 
one's  felloAvs  in  distress.  The  necessity  of  cultivating  a 
forjriving  spirit  towards  one's  brother,  instead  of  a  spirit 
of  bitterness  and  revenge,  is  illustrated  in  the  possibly  less 
read  parable  of  the  Two  Slaves.  (^)  Even  harsh  judgment 
of  a  brother  is  forbidden;  criticism  of  a  brother's  faults  is 

(^)  Ps.  51:4.  Of  course  the  ethical  question  is  wholly  unaltered 
if  the  critical  view  be  accepted  that  David  did  not  write  the 
Psalm. 

(  =  )    Matt.  5:23,  24. 

(»)   Luke  10:30-37. 

(*)    Matt.  25:31-40. 

(»)   Matt.  23:18-S^.  '  ' 


74  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHKISTIANITY 

reproved  with  gentle  irony  ;(^)  and  as  for  anger,  it  is  de- 
clared to  be  equivalent  to  murder. (")  These  are  so  hard 
lessons  for  human  nature  to  learn  and  obey,  that  Jesus 
repeats  them  in  various  forms,  again  and  again ;  and  on  the 
duty  of  forgiveness,  in  particular,  more  stress  is  laid  than 
on  any  other  element  of  his  teaching.  He  practically  makes 
willingness  to  forgive  a  test  of  membership  in  the  King- 
dom: 

If  your  brother  wrongs  you,  rebuke  him. 

And  if  he  repents,  forgive  him. 
And  if  he  wrongs  you  seven  times  a  day, 

And  seven  times  a  day  turns  to  you  and  says,  "For- 
give," 
Forgive  him  !(^) 

For,  if  you  forgive  men  their  trespasses. 

Your  Heavenly  Father  will  forgive  you  also ; 

But  if  you  do  not  forgive  men, 

Neither  will  your  Father  forgive  your  trespasses. (*) 

And  that  this  is  no  arbitrary  decree,  any  student  of  the 
teachings  of  Jesus,  who  has  really  tried  to  walk  in  his 
ways,  well  knows.  'No  one  can  receive  love  who  is  not 
ready  to  give  love.  That  was  why  the  sin  of  Dives  was  ir- 
reparable— he  had  refused  love  to  Lazarus,  his  brother 
who  was  in  poverty  and  want,  and  so  was  incapable  of  re- 
ceiving God's  love.  In  the  parable  of  the  Workers  in  the 
Vineyard, (^)  eTesus  teaches  his  followers  what  is  for  them 
perhaps  the  hardest  lesson  of  all:  that  they  must  treat 
men,  not  according  to  seeming  desert,  but  according  to 
actual  want.  We  must  not  ask.  What  have  thr-y  done? 
but,  What  do  they  need?  We  must  give  them,  not  what 
justice  requires,  but  what  love  prompts;  not  the  least  they 

n"Matt.  7:1-5. 
(2)    Matt.  r):21,  22. 
r)   Luke  17:4. 
(*)   Matt.  G:14,  15. 
n   Matt.  20:1-16. 


JESUS  THE   PvEVEALEE  OF  GOD 


75 


will  accept  and  our  conscience  permit,  but  the  most  we  can 
spare,  and  even  more  than  we  can  spare.  As  we  often  say, 
but  seldom  do,  we  must  give  until  it  hurts.  How  unbusi- 
nesslike !  But  how  divine !  Eor  to  give  men  what  they 
have  earned,  or  Avhat  they  seem  to  us  to  have  deserved,  is 
justice — a  good  thing,  but  a  cold.  To  give  men  what  they 
have  not  earned  or  desei^ed,  yet  need,  is  that  greatest  thing 
in  the  world,  that  godlike  thing  we  call  love.  And  this, 
Jesus  said,  is  the  whole  of  Law  and  Prophets.  It  is  also 
the  whole  of  his  gospel.  And  it  is  man's  only  adequate 
self-expression. 


CHAPTER  IV 
JESUS  THE  HERALD  OF  THE  KINGDOM 


Those  Avho  account  themselves  the  only  ^^orthodox"  Chris- 
tians are  nsually  quite  insistent  that  ministers  shall 
"preach  the  simple  gospel."  This  cant  phrase  (for  such 
it  now  is)  is  oftenest  on  the  lips  of  those  who  have  not 
the  slightest  idea  of  what  the  real  "gospel''  is.  Gospel  is 
Good  News,  the  English  equivalent  of  svayyEkiov  ,  the 
word  used  in  the  New  Testament  documents  to  denote  the 
Message  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles.  The  original  content 
of  that  Message  is  very  clear.  According  to  Mark,  the 
oldest  record  that  we  have  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  he 
began  his  work  in  Galilee  by  announcing: 

Tlie  time  is  completed, 

And  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand. 

Repent  and  believe  in  the  Good  N"ews.(^) 

This  was  the  gospel  of  Jesus :  a  declaration  that  the  King- 
dom of  God  was  about  to  be  established,  and  a  summons  to 
men  to  "repent"  and  "believe"  as  conditions  of  membership 
in  the  Kingdom.  In  other  words,  they  were  to  accept  the 
Message  and  relate  themselves  to  it.  It  was  a  call  to  a  new 
ideal  of  life,  to  a  new  purpose  in  life,  to  a  new  conduct 
of  life. 

And  the  kernel  of  the  Good  News  was  the  immediate 
coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  By  this  Jesus  seems  to 
have  intended  his  hearers  to  understand  the  world  as  God's 


{')  Mark   1:15. 

76 


JESUS  THE   HEliALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  77 

spiritual  empire,  a  realm  on  earth  with  the  fundamental 
characteristics  of  Heaven,  a  world  in  which  men  will  b3 
godlike.  The  chief  note  of  Heaven,  in  the  mind  of  Jesus, 
clearly  was  that  it  was  a  divine  realm  of  ideal  perfection, 
because  in  it  God  was  all  in  all,  and  his  will  was  perfectly 
done.  The  Kingdom  of  God  on  earth  w^ould  be  realized 
when  God  became  the  dominating  influence  in  the  hearts 
and  lives  of  men,  when  his  will  is  done  here  as  it  is  in 
Heaven. 

Our  Avord  ^^kingdom"  fails  to  express  the  idea  of  Jesus ; 
for,  while  PadiAeux  did  originally  mean  ''kingdom,''  t<> 
the  generation  of  Jesus  it  had  come  to  be  the  equivalent 
of  the  I^atin  imperium,  and  to  mean  the  Roman  Empire, 
an  authority  conterminous  with  the  world  itself.  There 
could  be,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  but  one  such  universal 
imperiuvi,  in  the  sense  of  a  visible  government,  with  an 
Imperator  at  its  head,  divided  into  provinces,  each  with 
its  administrator  responsible  to  the  Emperor;  and  its  great 
army,  distributed  into  legions,  all  absolutely  loyal  to  the 
Imperator  or  commander-in-chief.  But  there  could  be 
alongside  of  this  political  and  military  impermm,  and 
conflicting  with  it  not  at  all,  because  moving  in  a  totally 
different  sphere,  a  religious  or  "spirituar'  Empire,  as  vast, 
as  perfectly  organized,  as  loyal  to  its  Head.  But  the 
words  of  Jesus  nowhere  afford  us  a  hint  that  he  had  any 
conception  of  a  Kingdom  like  that.  He  never  describes 
the  Kingdom  of  God  in  terms  that  can  be  stretched  to 
cover  such  a  conception.  That  was  a  notion  of  the  King- 
dom that  came  to  prevail  among  Christians  in  consequence 
of  Imperial  favor,  after  (^)nstantine  and  liis  successors  had 
made  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  both  in  form  and  spirit  a 
more  or  less  religious  counterpart  of  the  political  institu- 
tions of  the  Eoman  State. 

elesus  used  the  word  that  he  found  on  the  lips  of  all  men, 
because  it  was  the  only  word  available.  If  a  religious 
teacher  is  to  make  himself  understood  at  all,  he  must  con- 


78  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

form  to  the  speech  of  his  day.  He  may  indeed  introduce 
a  fcAv  new  words,  or  he  may  try  to  give  a  deeper  signifi- 
cance to  commonplace  words,  and  in  either  case  he  takes 
the  risk  of  being  misunderstood.  Nothing  is  plainer  from 
the  Gospels  than  that,  in  this  matter  of  the  Kingdom,  Jesus 
shot  over  the  heads  of  his  entire  generation.  True,  his 
hearers  hung  upon  his  lips.  They  remembered  many  say- 
ings with  wonderful  accuracy.  In  due  time  they  wrote 
down  his  words  and  passed  them  on  to  others.  But  they 
misunderstood,  with  unanimity  and  perseverance  that  one 
refrains  from  calling  perversity  only  because  they  so  evi- 
dently could  not  help  themselves.  Their  misunderstanding 
was  as  honest  as  it  was  tragic. 

For  the  mind  of  the  Jew  was  then  full  of  an  idea  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  that  he  derived  from  the  Empire  under 
which  he  lived.  He  was  more  than  he  realized  imder  the 
spell  of  that  tremendous  institution,  the  like  of  which  had 
never  been  known  before.  The  '^Empires"  of  Egypt  and 
Babylonia,  of  Assyria  and  Persia,  and  even  that  of  the 
great  Alexander,  had  been  limited  and  ephemeral  things  to 
which  it  was  a  joke  to  apply  the  name  imperium.  But 
here  was  an  authority  extending  to  the  very  confines  of 
civilization,  with  common  laws,  institutions,  language. 
There  seemed  every  reason  why  it  should  endure  forever. 
1^0  forces  were  visible  or  computable  by  ordinary  human 
foresight  that  could  smash  this  vast  military,  legal  and 
social  organization.  And  as  matter  of  fact,  it  did  endure 
through  fourteen  centuries  thereafter.  ISTothing  else  human 
and  mundane  has  so  nearly  deserved  the  oft-applied  epi- 
thets, "perpetual"  and  "eternal." 

It  is  rather  common  to  say  that  the  Jew  hated  the 
Roman  Empire.  It  might  be  more  exact  to  say  that  the 
Jew  hated  the  Roman,  not  the  Empire.  A  universal 
imperium  of  which  Jerusalem  should  be  the  centre,  the 
power  of  which  should  be  wielded  by  a  Son  of  David,  was 
his  dearest  dream — that  vision  summed  up  his  ideas  of 


JESUS  THE  HERALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  79 

human  felicity  and  glory.  So  much  admiration  did  the 
Eoman  Empire  exact  from  those  who  unwillingly  sub- 
mitted to  it.  So  completely  as  this  did  it  dominate  their 
thought  and  imagination.  The  Jew  translated  the  King- 
dom of  God  into  terms  of  this  visible  organization. 

It  was  to  a  generation  with  mind  preoccupied  by  such 
an  ideal  that  Jesus  vainly  tried  to  communicate  his  ideal 
of  a  Kingdom  of  spirit.  He  said  again  and  again,  to  men 
as  unreceptive  as  blocks  of  wood,  things  like  these: 

The  Kingdom  of  God  is  not  coming  so  that  you  can 
see  it, 
Nor  will  men  say,  "Here  it  is !"  or  "There  it  is !" 
For  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you.(^) 

Jesus  could  not  hope,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  to  get  on  with 
his  hearers  save  by  using  the  accepted  word,  but  the 
moment  lie  uttered  it  their  minds  were  obsessed  by  th<:^ 
phantasy  of  an  empire  of  this  world.  It  was  the  only  word 
available,  for  there  were  no  alternatives  that  his  hearers 
could  have  understood  better.  There  were  then  no  repub- 
lics, still  more  no  democracies.  The  old  Roman  res  puhlica 
had  perished,  and  the  Greek  '^democracies"  were  never 
democratic,  for  they  were  founded  on  the  economic  basis 
of  slavery.  But  it  is  notable  that,  though  he  uses  the  word 
Kingdom,  Jesus  never  describes  his  ideal  as  a  monarchy, 
but  as  a  commonwealth,  a  democracy.  The  Kingdom  is  a 
state  of  equality,  of  brotherhood,  of  mutual  service.  There 
can  be  no  aristocracy  in  it ;  no  one  can  claim  to  be  greater 
than  his  fellows : 

You  know  that  those  considered  rulers  among  the  heathen 

lord  it  over  them, 
And  their  great  men  exercise  authority  over  them; 

It  will  not  be  so  among  yon. 
So,  whoever  of  you  wishes  to  become  first. 

Let  him  be  slave  of  all!(-) 


(M   Or   "among  vou."      Luke   17:20,  21. 
{')    Matt.  20:25-27:  Lnko  22:2.-),  20. 


80  FUA^DAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

The  Kingdom  of  God,(^)  in  other  words,  is  a  social  order 
dominated  in  all  the  relations  of  men  with  each  other  by 
the  spirit  that  God  shows  in  his  dealings  with  us — the 
spirit  of  love,  of  universal  good  will,  shown  by  each  to 
each.  In  the  Kingdom  good  will  is  to  conquer  hatred, 
trust  is  to  take  the  place  of  fear,  mutual  helpfulness  will 
be  found  instead  of  strife.  Cooperation  will  supplant 
competition,  service  will  be  the  standard  of  greatness,  and 
the  chief  reward  will  be  neither  honor  nor  wealth,  but  the 
consciousness  of  having  done  one's  best  for  the  common 
welfare. 


II 

^'Repent  and  believe  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,*'  was  the 
Good  News  of  Jesus.  But  theologians  have  read  into  these 
words  meanings  of  which  he  never  dreamed,  as  well  as 
read  out  of  them  all  the  meaning  that  he  put  there,  until 
a  positive  perversion  of  his  ^^simple  gospel"  has  resulted. 
^'Repent"  and  ^'repentance"  are  the  English  words  long 
ago  chosen  to  render  the  Greek  jieTavoeo),  fxetdvoia. 
We  must  evacuate  the  words  of  theological  subtleties  and 
get  back  to  the  meaning  that  they  had  for  Jesus  and  his 
generation.     The  words  are  not  very  common  in  classical 

(^)  This  is  the  phrase  used  by  Mark  thirteen  times  and  by  Luke 
thirty-three  times,  while  Matthew  uses  it  only  five  times,  in  all 
other  cases  (twenty-four)  preferring  Kingdom  of  Heaven  (lit.  of 
the  heavens).  The  word  (3aoiXEia  occurs  fifty-six  times  in  Matthew, 
and  of  these  cases  it  is  attributed  to  Jesus  forty-nine  times 
in  direct  quotation,  besides  twice  in  indirect.  This  is  character- 
istic of  the  Synoptics  generally.  But  in  John  the  word  occurs 
but  four  times,  in  every  instance  in  words  credited  to  Jesus  himself. 
To  those  who  really  wish  to  understand  the  teaching  of  Jesus  re- 
garding the  Kingdom,  a  little  book  by  F.  Herbert  Stead  is  worth 
its  weight  in  gold.  It  is  an  inductive  study  of  the  Gospels,  and  as 
a  result  this  definition  is  formulated:  "The  Kingdom  of  (i!od  is  tlio 
fellowship  of  souls  divine  and  human,  of  which  the  law  and  the 
life  are  love,  wherein  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  Brotherhood 
of  man,  as  both  are  embodied  in  Jesus  the  Christ,  are  recognized 
and  realized."     (Edinburgh,  T  &  T  Clark.     "Bible  Class  Primers",) 


JESUS  THE  IIEllALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  81 

Greek,  but  when  used  they  always  denote  a  change  of  opin- 
ion or  purpose.  A  sober  second  thought  often  leads  a  man 
to  change  his  first  opinion,  or  to  do  something  other  than 
he  at  first  intended.  It  is  this  fact  of  change  that  is  the 
fundamental  meaning  of  these  words. 

It  is  in  this  sense  that  Jesus  always  uses  them,  and 
throughout  the  ^ew  Testament  there  is  no  apparent  varia- 
tion from  his  usage.  When  a  man  perceives  his  past  mis- 
deeds and  determines  to  change  his  conduct  and  lead  a  dif- 
ferent life,  he  ''repents"  in  the  Gospel  sense.  The  prodi- 
gal, when  he  ''came  to  himself"  and  became  convinced  of 
his  folly,  resolved,  "I  will  rise  and  go  to  my  father,"  and 
that  w^as  his  "repentance."  So  every  man  through  "re- 
pentance" finds  himself  and  becomes  a  new  man  in  his  at- 
titude towards  God  and  his  fellow^s.  He  becomes  ready  to 
do  his  part  in  reorganizing  the  social  order  on  the  basis  of 
brotherhood.  He  becomes  a  member  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God. 

With  such  a  change  of  mind  and  purpose  often  goes  an 
abhorrence  of  the  past  life,  a  new  sense  of  the  meaninii- 
of  moral  obliquity,  which  theologians  have  called  "convic- 
tion of  sin."  But  this  emotional  accompaniment  of  tlio 
change  is  of  no  ethical  value  in  itself;  it  may  even  exist 
without  repentance,  or  change  of  mind  and  purpose,  in 
which  case  we  call  it  remorse.  Repentance  is  nothing  else 
than  change  of  ethical  perception,  change  of  attitude, 
change  of  conduct,  all  resulting  ultimately  in  change  of 
character.  It  is  a  deliberate  facing  about  and  going  in 
the  opposite  direction.  It  amounts  to  an  ethical  revolu- 
tion. It  is  the  birth  of  a  new  man.  It  may  be  preceded 
by  experiences  of  greatly  various  kinds,  by  moral  turpi tud(> 
of  different  degrees;  it  may  be  accompanied  by  great 
spiritual  disturbances  or  may  be  without  marked  emotional 
quality.  All  these  are  trifling  considerations:  the  real 
thing,  the  only  thing  of  moment,  is  the  change. 

Jesus  treats  this  change  as  something  within  the  power 


82  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

of  every  irian's  will :  he  assumes  that  any  man  can,  if  he 
chooses,  turn  about  and  amend  his  life.  And  so  every 
man  is  summoned  to  do  just  this.  He  has  hitherto  lived 
tlie  life  of  selfhood:  he  must  henceforth  live  the  life  of 
brotherhood.  He  has  hitherto  been  absorbed  in  schemes 
for  promoting  his  own  advantage;  he  must  henceforth  seek 
first  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness.  His  en- 
tire plan  of  life  must  be  revised  and  new  ideals  must  take 
the  place  of  old. 

But  it  should  not  be  inferred,  because  repentance  is  so 
plain  and  simple  a  matter,  that  Jesus  thought  it  an  easy 
thing,  a  change  requiring  little  or  no  effort.  Quite  the 
contrary.  He  clearly  recognized  that  God  will  not,  be- 
cause he  cannot,  save  a  man  who  will  not  '^agonize,"  strive 
as  an  athlete  for  victory,  to  enter  the  narrow  gate  that 
leads  to  eternal  life.  To  be  a  follower  of  Jesus  is  not  for 
the  lazy,  the  indifferent,  the  cowardly,  the  mentally  limp, 
the  quitters ;  it  demands  an  alert  mind,  a  well-braced  will ; 
it  offers  opportunities .  for  all  that  may  be  in  us  of  the 
heroic,  the  aspiring,  the  intrepid,  the  enduring. 

^''Master/^  said  another,  "I  will  follow  you,  but  permit  me 
first  to  bid  farewell  to  my  friends  at  home.'' 

"No  man,^'  replied  Jesus,  "who  has  put  his  hand  to  the 
plough  and  looks  at  things  behind,  is  fit  for  the  Kingdom  of 
God.''(^) 

If  any  man  would  come  after  me. 

Let  him  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  rac. 

For  he  that  would  save  his  life  will  lose  it. 

But  he  that  loses  his  life  for  my  sake  will  find  it. 

For  what  good  will  it  do  a  man  to  gain  the  whole  world. 
But  lose  his  own  life? 

Or  what  will  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  life?(-) 


C)   Luke   9:61,    62. 

(==)   Matt,  16:24-26;   Mark  8:34-37;   Luke  9:23-25. 


JESUS  THE   IJEllALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  bo 

Modern  evangelism,  based  upon  the  false  interpretation 
of  theologians,  has  made  ^^repentance'^  an  adjunct  of  what 
thej  call  ^'conversion/'  the  chief  end  of  which  is  supposed 
to  be  to  secure  a  sinner's  deliverance  from  God's  wrath  and 
condemnation  and  the  consequent  danger  of  eternal  punish- 
ment. The  accepted  test  of  a  ^'conversion"  is  an  emotional 
''experience,"  the  stages  of  which  are:  first,  "conviction 
of  sin,"  second,  "repentance,"  and  third,  "faith,"  all  of 
which  results  in  the  joyful  assurance  of  sins  forgiven. 
Lack  of  any  one  of  these  elements  used  to  be  regarded 
as  invalidating  the  "experience" ;  and  though  judgment  is 
now  more  lenient,  this  is  still  regarded  as  the  normal  t^^o. 

But  an  emotional  crisis  is  no  proof  of  change  of  char- 
acter. The  fact  that  a  man  has  a  firm  conviction  that  his 
sins  have  been  forgiven — that  he  is  "saved" — is  not  ade- 
quate proof  of  God's  forgiveness ;  he  may  be  altogether 
deluded  about  his  standing  with  God.  The  real  proof  of 
forgiveness  of  his  sins  is  the  man's  attitude  towards  them ; 
for  the  only  sins  that  God  forgives  are  the  sins  that  man 
has  forsaken  and  hated.  The  convincing  proof  of  conver- 
sion is  not  an  inward  experience,  but  an  outward  and 
visible  alteration  of  conduct. 

Christian  liistory  has  shown  all  forms  of  "experience" 
to  be  only  too  often  wholly  illusory.  The  'New  Testament 
writings  nowhere  jDropose  an  emotional  test  of  Christian 
character.  The  apostles  and  Jesus  are  at  one  on  this  point, 
as  perhaps  they  are  not  on  any  other:  the  reality  of  the 
Christian  life  is  to  be  tested,  not  by  subjective  emotion, 
but  by  objective  fact — the  tree  is  to  be  known  by  its 
fruits,  that  is,  by  conduct.  Does  an  alleged  conversion 
make  a  complete  change  in  a  man's  life,  so  as  to  show  that 
he  is  ruled  by  new  ideals  ?  May  he  be  judged  on  the  basis 
of  what  he  is  and  does  to  be  a  man  reborn  ?  Does  he  show 
by  word  and  deed  that  he  lias  renounced  self  and  is  living 
tlie  life  of  brotherhood  ?  Is  he  plainly  seeking  first  the 
Kingdom    and    its    righteousness — the    reign    of    justice. 


84  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHKISTIANITY 

mercy  and  peace  in  this  world — and  is  he  doing  what  he 
may  to  make  this  ideal  a  reality?  ISTever  mind  how  he 
feels;  what  is  he  doing? 

Nothing  so  clearly  emerges  from  the  present  condition 
of  our  ^'evangelical"  churches  as  this  damning  fact:  these 
emotional  ''conversions"  do  not  result  in  the  kind  of  re- 
pentance that  Jesus  demanded.  Our  churches  are  full  of 
people,  as  every  candid  pastor  will  sorrowfully  admit  in 
private,  though  he  might  not  care  to  say  it  in  public,  who 
give  no  slightest  indication  of  changed  attitude  or  pur- 
pose. Some,  it  is  true,  are  changed  in  the  sense  of  better 
individualistic  ethics,  but  that  is  all.  The  "converted" 
man  curbs  some  of  his  former  vices,  perhaps,  but  he  goes 
right  on  in  his  old  life  of  selfhood,  without  any  notion 
that  his  life  calls  for  amendment  or  change.  In  religious 
meetings  he  talks  about  "love"  and  "brotherhood,"  while 
in  his  daily  business  he  practices  all  the  ruthlessness  of 
the  Hun.  Thousands  of  such  "conversions"  bring  the 
Kingdom  no  nearer.  How  should  they?  They  have  no 
relation  to  the  Kingdom  and  are  not  in  sight  of  its  ideals. 
The  churches  will  utterly  fail  to  achieve  their  declared 
purpose  until  there  is  complete  reform  of  methods  and 
standards. 

It  is  the  theological  perversion  of  "repentance"  that 
has  so  disastrously  promoted  the  exaggerated  individualism 
of  Protestant  Christianity,  and  all  but  caused  men  to 
forget  the  social  implications  of  the  gospel.  On  the  lips 
of  Jesus,  Kingdom  of  God  and  "eternal  life"  are  synony- 
mous. He  did  not  teach  men  to  flee  from  the  world,  but 
to  overcome  it.  The  main  idea  of  his  gospel  was  not  a 
personal  deliverance  from  sin  and  the  individuaFs  attain- 
ment of  peace  and  happiness  here  and  hereafter,  as  the 
immediate  end  to  be  sought.  His  goal  was  the  salvation 
of  the  world,  of  society,  as  the  only  way  to  save  tlio  in- 
flividufil — the  deliverance  of  all  men,  not  merely  a  chosen 
few,  from  a  maze  of  evil  conditions  that  make  individual 


JESUS  THE  HERALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  85 

transgression  inevitable.  Religion  was  not,  in  his  view,  a 
force  for  personal  uplift  merely,  but  a  social  force  to  be 
felt  throughout  the  complex  relationships  of  life.  And  it 
is  precisely  that  quality  of  his  teaching  that  made  it  so 
unpalatable  to  his  hearers;  and  it  has  ever  since  been  so 
unacceptable,  that  men  have  devoted  themselves  chiefly 
to  devising  excuses  for  not  doing  what  he  demanded  they 
should  do.  For,  as  has  been  well  remarked,  men  will 
wTangle  for  religion,  write  for  it,  fight  for  it,  die  for  it — 
anything  but  live  for  it. 

The  popular  form  of  Protestant  religion  was  never 
more  happily  expressed  than  by  John  Bunyan.  His  Pil- 
grim, putting  his  fingers  in  his  ears  to  shut  out  every- 
thing but  the  inner  voice  urging  him  to  flee  from  the 
City  of  Destruction,  reckless  of  the  fate  of  wife  and  chil- 
dren, with  no  idea  that  he  owed  anything  to  his  fellow- 
citizens,  in  a  passion  of  selfish  fear  lest  he  himself  should 
be  eternally  miserable  and  ready  to  sacrific  every  con- 
sideration of  honor  and  duty  if  he  might  thereby  secure 
his  own  eternal  happiness — that  is  the  portrait  of  the  ideal 
Christian  that  John  Bunyan  gives  us.  Look  on  this  pic- 
ture and  then  on  that,  compare  this  ideal  with  the  words 
of  Jesus,  and  see  how  little  they  agree.  There  could  not 
be  a  more  total  or  a  more  fatal  perversion  of  the  ideal  of 
Jesus. 

The  pilgrim's  objective  in  Bunyan's  narrative  is  hope- 
lessly wrong;  our  business  is  not  to  get  ourselves  into  the 
Celestial  City  as  speedily  as  we  may,  regardless  of  what 
may  happen  to  others,  like  a  man  who  should  rusli  out  of 
a  burning  house  without  stopping  to  see  how  his  wife  and 
children  were  to  be  rescued,  so  intent  on  saving  his  own 
life  as  to  forget  that  other  lives  were  to  be  saved.  Our 
business  is  to  make  our  own  city  celestial,  to  bring  into  it 
and  make  real  all  that  we  can  imagine  possible  of  splendor 
and  purity  and  blessedness  in  Jerusalem  the  Golden.  The 
true  story  of  a  Pilgrim's  Progress  in  the  twentieth  century 


86  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHEISTIANITY 

would  tsliuw  liiiii  reinainiug  in  the  City  of  Destruction  and 
striving  to  make  of  it  a  City  of  Salvation.  It  would 
picture  a  man  so  concerned  for  the  salvation  of  wife  and 
children  and  neighbors  as  to  lose  all  thought  about  his 
own.(/) 

It  would  show  him  leading  his  companions  to 
drain  the  Slough  of  Despond  and  batter  down  the  castle 
of  Despair  about  the  giant's  ears.  It  would  show  him 
reforming  the  abuses  of  Vanity  Fair  and  making  it  a  place 
of  helpful  amusement  and  recreation.  And  the  man  who 
did  all  this  would  be  none  the  less  but  rather  all  the  more 
capable  of  appreciating  the  view  from  the  top  of  the  De- 
lectable Mountains. 

And  theological  perversions  of  ^'believe"  and  "faith" 
have  been  equally  disastrous.  Since  the  Reformation  and 
the  proclamation  by  Luther  of  "justification  by  faith 
alone"  as  the  article  of  a  standing  or  falling  Church,  there 
has  been  a  steady  drift  in  the  direction  of  making  "faith" 
an  intellectual  process,  the  acceptance  of  a  body  of  teach- 
ing, of  ecclesiastical  dogma,  regarding  religion.  This  has 
made  orthodoxy  of  more  value  than  character.  Some  re- 
ligious bodies  have  explicitly  defined  faith  as  acceptance 
of  the  historic  facts  about  Jesus  and  the  truth  of  his  teach- 
ing. Even  in  those  religious  circles  where  this  definition 
is  formally  repudiated,  and  it  is  insisted  that  faith  is  some- 
thing more  than  intellectual  assent,  there  is  a  tendency 
too  strong  to  be  resisted  to  make  faith  mean  just  this  and 
only  this. 

But  on  the  lips  of  Jesus,  and  throughout  the  E'ew  Testa- 
ment writings,  "faith,"  "believe"  denote  an  act  of  the  will 
rather  than  of  the  intellect.  It  has  an  intellectual  basis, 
as  every  act  of  the  will  has,  but  the  essential  thing  in 

(')  William  WilberforcG,  who  spent  his  life  in  procuring  the  eman- 
cipation of  slaves  in  all  English  domains,  was  once  reproached  by  a 
good  "evangelical"  woman  for  showing  so  little  concern  for  the  salva- 
tion of  his  soul.  ''Madam/'  he  replied,  "I  had  almost  forgotten  that 
I  had  a  soul." 


JESUS  THE   HERALD  OF  THE   KINGDOlNr  87 

"fail IT'  is  a  docisioii  and  an  act.  To  ''Ixilievc  in  the  Good 
[News/'  as  Jesiis  used  I  he  phrase,  is  to  have  such  confi- 
dence in  tlie  p^ospel  as  leads  to  obedience.  ^Taith"  is 
trust ;  not  mere  assent  of  the  mind,  but  consent  of  the  will, 
resulting  in  conduct.  It  is  to  have  such  an  attitude  towards 
Jesus  as  the  pupil  has  towards  his  teacher,  as  the  soldier 
has  towards  his  commander.  It  is  an  ethical  quality,  that 
is  influenced  by  intellectual  processes,  but  still  moves  in 
another  plane. 

To  have  such  faith  in  the  founder  of  the  Kingdom  is 
necessary  to  entrance  into  it,  not  because  such  an  arbitrary 
condition  of  entrance  has  been  imposed,  but  because  with- 
out such  trust  in  Jesus  and  his  teaching  nobody  would 
make  the  faintest  effort  to  realize  his  ideal.  Thousands  of 
years  of  professed  allegiance  to  him  have  hardly  advanced 
us  a  step  towards  the  goal  that  he  proposed;  and  that  is, 
plainly  enough,  because  men  have  professed  allegiance  yet 
failed  to  give  it.  Their  failure  is  not  to  be  justly  con- 
demned, in  the  majority  of  cases  at  least,  either  as  hypoc- 
risy or  as  deliberate  disobedience,  but  as  ignorance.  For 
the  teachers  and  leaders  of  the  Christian  world  have  not 
themselves  comprehended  the  ideals  of  Jesus,  and  so  of 
course  could  not  instruct  people  regarding  them.  We 
are  just  recovering  knowledge  of  the  real  significance  of 
the  Master's  teaching. 

Tlie  humility  that  Jesus  prescribed,  equally  with  trust, 
as  a  condition  of  entering  the  Kingdom,  has  proved  a  stone 
of  stumbling  to  many.  It  is  probable  that  for  some  time 
to  come  humility  will  not  be  a  popular  virtue.  What  we 
are  exhorted  in  these  days  to  do,  is  to  seek  all  means  of 
^'self-expression,"  by  which  is  far  too  often  meant  a  ruth- 
less egoism  that  asserts  an  inalienable  right  to  live  one's 
own  life  and  scorns  regard  for  the  lives  of  others  as  a 
cramping  of  personality.  But  much  of  the  prejudice 
against  the  teaching  of  Jesus  rests  on  a  misconception  of 


88  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

its  nature.  Perhaps  the  word  ^'modesty"  would  come 
nearer  to  conveying  the  real  meaning  of  Jesus  to  the  pres- 
ent generation.  To  be  humble  is  not  to  cringe  and  sneak,  to 
be  meek  is  not  to  be  abject  and  craven;  it  is  to  cultivate  a 
modest  estimate  of  self  and  forbear  arrogance,  haughtiness 
and  bluster.  It  is  the  domineering,  flaunting,  supercilious 
spirit  that  we  are  to  eschew,  for  these  are  anti-social,  they 
prevent  mutual  goodwill.  But  the  Kingdom  has  no  place 
for  the  timid,  the  obsequious,  the  mean-spirited;  it  is  a 
Kingdom  of  gentlemen  and  gentlewomen,  and  all  that  is 
urbane  and  companionable,  highminded  or  honorable, 
breathes  in  this  realm  its  native  air.  It  was  because  he 
taught  such  a  Kingdom  as  this  that  the  professed  follow- 
ers of  Jesus  have  from  the  beginning  followed  him  with 
greatest  reluctance,  and  no  further  than  they  must;  and 
that  has  proved  to  be  a  very  little  way  indeed.  It  is  only 
quite  recently  that  any  considerable  number  of  people 
were  ready  for  such  a  Kingdom  as  this,  saw  in  it  anything 
to  be  desired,  or  believed  that  it  was  possible  to  establish 
it.  And  those  people  are  beginning  very  seriously  to  doubt 
whether  the  realization  of  the  Kingdom  is  to  be  hoped 
through  the  agency  of  that  Church  which  claims  Jesus  as 
Founder  and  Head,  notwithstanding  it  professes  to  exist 
only  for  bringing  in  the  Kingdom.  For,  in  spite  of  loud 
professions  and  claims  of  loyalty  to  Jesus,  only  in  the  few- 
est instances  can  the  Cliristian  churches  be  induced  to  take 
any  serious  interest  in  the  Kingdom  propaganda,  or  to 
undertake  anything  that  has  a  real  tendency  to  hasten  the 
Kingdom's  coming.  Nietzsche  thought  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  was  "doctrine  for  weaklings,''  but  the  difficulty 
with  that  teaching  has  always  been  that  men  w^ere  not 
strong  enough  to  follow  it.  They  have  feebly  evaded  its 
obligations  by  declaring  them  impracticable.  Jesus  is  the 
one  Superman. 


JESUS  THE  HERALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  89 

III 

When  we  interpret  ^'tlie  Good  JN'ews  of  the  Kingdom" 
to  mean  that  Jesus  taught  a  social  gospel,  we  do  not  imply 
that  Jesus  was  in  any  sense  a  professor  of  Sociology. 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  held  any  definite 
scientific  theory  regarding  society,  any  more  than  he  held 
a  definite  scientific  theory  regarding  religion.  He  was 
entirely  concerned  with  the  practical  aspects  of  society  and 
religion.  But  he  saw,  as  clearly  as  any  modern  professor, 
that  society  and  the  individual  are  mutually  related ;  that 
each  is  indispensable  to  the  other,  each  complements  the 
other,  each  reacts  on  the  other. 

But  which  should  stand  first  in  our  thinking,  and 
which  should  we  regard  as  of  first  practical  importance  ? 
Or  should  there  be  no  first  ?  A  perfect  dualism  in  thouglit 
may  be  possible,  but  practical  dualism  is  virtually  impos- 
sible. In  actual  life,  either  the  Kingdom  or  the  individual 
will  take  precedence.  The  conviction  is  gaining  ground 
that,  if  we  would  be  true  to  the  ideals  of  Jesus,  we  must 
give  first  place  to  the  Kingdom  and  not  to  the  individual — 
that  the  hope  of  future  salvation  for  the  race  depends  on 
our  giving  greatly  intensified  emphasis  to  the  idea  of 
social  salvation. 

The  study  of  biology  has  done  much  in  recent  years  to 
alter  our  views  of  the  meaning  of  history  and  the  signifi- 
cance of  social  institutions,  as  well  as  of  the  method  of 
social  progress.  Our  notion  of  the  importance  of  the  in- 
dividual has  suffered  diminution,  and  our  estimate  of  the 
value  of  the  species  has  been  correspondingly  enlarged. 
Throughout  nature  it  is  seen  that  the  individual  is  of  com- 
paratively slight  importance;  individuals  are  born,  live 
and  die,  but  the  species  remains.  We  begin  to  see  a  reality 
in  what  we  had  come  to  regard  as  barren  metaphysical 
speculations — that  there  was  truth,  though  perhaps  not 
all  the  "truth''  for  which  they  contended,  in  the  "ideas" 
of  Plato  and  the  "universals"  of  the  schoolmen.     We  no 


00  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

longer  conceive  of  the  species  as  the  mere  classification  of 
individuals,  but  as  a  separate  entity,  of  which  individuals 
are  manifestations.  It  is  true  that  our  senses  report  to  us 
only  men,  yet  we  refuse  to  believe  that  '^man"  is  a  mere 
figment  of  the  mind,  and  deny  that  the  only  reality  is 
that  which  the  senses  perceive.  This  change  of  mental 
attitude  should  help  us  to  understand  better  the  insistence 
of  Jesus  on  the  supremacy  of  the  Kingdom  as  compared 
with  the  individual. 

And  just  here  Anthropology  comes  forward  with  its 
contribution.  It  assures  us  that  religion  was,  in  its  earlier 
and  cruder  forms,  essentially  a  system  for  securing  the 
welfare  of  the  social  group,  and  all  its  rites  and  rules  had 
as  their  underlying  principle  the  sacrifice  of  individual 
interests  to  social  needs.  The  'preservation  of  the  group 
was  the  paramount  necessity,  inasmuch  as  it  was  the  only 
means  by  which  the  preservation  of  the  individual  could 
be  secured.  As  Kipling  puts  it,  in  ^'The  Law  of  the 
Jungle," 

The  strength  of  the  Pack  is  the  Wolf,  and  the  strength 
of  the  Wolf  is  the  Pack. 

Everything  else  must  bend  to  the  one  imperious  necessity 
of  promoting  the  highest  practicable  measure  of  securi  ty 
and  comfort  for  all,  or  there  could  be  no  life  for  any. 
Individualism  in  religion  is  a  comparatively  late  develop- 
ment, and  has  been  fully  realized  only  in  modern  Prot- 
estantism. Jesus  recognized  the  equal  claims  of  social 
and  individual  interests,  so  far  as  these  are  capable  of 
distinction  and  realization;  he  avoided  the  undue  sacrifice 
of  the  individual  to  the  group,  which  was  the  chief  defect 
of  the  early  religions,  and  insisted  on  the  dignity  and 
rights  of  each  human  soul;  he  equally  avoided  the  disin- 
tegrating effect  that  proclaiming  the  individuaFs  complete 
inih^pendence  of  soci;il  obligations  inovitnbly  Ims,  by  re- 
quiring the  voluntary  subjection  of  the  individual  to  tlie 
social  order.     He  recognized  both  the  individuaPs  right 


JESUS  THE  HERALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  91 

» 

to  himself  and  his  duties  to  liis  fellows,  lie  established 
a  workable  equilibrium  between  two  principles  hitherto 
antagonistic,  fully  reconciled  them  in  his  thinking  and 
teaching,  and  contemplated  the  best  realization  of  each  in 
his  Kingdom. 

IV 

From  this  conception  of  the  Kingdom  as  a  brotherhood, 
with  its  implication  of  equal  rights,  privileges  and  oppor- 
tunities for  all,  come  all  the  sayings  of  Jesus  regarding 
property  and  wealth.  For  the  members  of  the  Kingdom 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  property,  something  that  is  one's 
very  own,  on  which  nobody  else  has  any  claim.  To  be- 
come a  member  of  the  Kingdom,  one  must  renounce  prop- 
erty forever — henceforth  one  does  not  own,  one  adminis- 
ters. The  property  is  the  King's;  we  are  his  stewards. 
So  much  has  been  said  of  late  about  ^^stewardship,"  a  good 
part  of  it  having  nothing  but  a  verbal  relation  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  that  it  is  fast  becoming  a  cant  word  that  real 
men  and  women  shim. 

For  the  Christian  ideal  that  a  member  of  the  Kingdom 
holds  all  that  is  nominally  his  as  a  trust  from  God,  to  be 
administered  for  God,  a  large  part  of  the  Christian  world 
is  trying  hard  to  substitute  the  Jewish  ideal  of  the  tithe. 
We  will  compound  with  God  by  scrupulously  giving  him 
a  tenth,  and  then  the  other  nine-tenths  will  belong  to  us 
in  fee  simple.  Stewards  ?  Yes,  stewards  of  a  tenth,  but 
absolute  owners  of  the  rest.  When  we  have  given  God 
his  tenth,  he  must  in  justice  leave  us  to  the  undisturbed 
enjoyment  of  what  remains — not  even  our  conscience  must 
give  us  a  surreptitious  twinge. 

Whatever  misguided  advocates  of  tithing  may  intend, 
the  practical  effect  of  tithing  must  be  to  dry  up  the  springs 
of  Christian  benevolence.  For  it  substitutes  the  Jewish 
law  of  mathematics  for  the  Christian  law  of  love,  l^ot 
to  mention  that  it  utterly  misconstrues  the  significance  of 


02  i'UNDAMEIirTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

the  tithe  in  Jewish  history.  The  later  prophets,  like  Mal- 
achi,  coining  from  the  priestly  class,  were  pleased  to 
represent  the  tithe  as  a  payment  to  God,  but  it  was  his- 
torically a  payment  to  the  tribe  of  Levi.  That  tribe  did 
not  receive  an  allotment  of  land,  what  would  have  been 
its  share  being  allotted  to  the  other  tribes;  and  in  lieu  of 
their  share  of  land,  the  Levites  were  to  receive  a  tenth  of 
all  produce  from  the  other  tribes  that  had  received  more 
than  their  just  portion.  (^)  Tithe  was  really  rent,  and  its 
payment  was  no  gift  of  God  but  discharge  of  a  just  obli- 
gation to  men.  The  Jew's  religious  giving  began  after  he 
had  paid  his  tithe,  and  is  called  in  the  Law  ^'offering"  or 
^^sacrifice."  The  natural  tendency  of  a  priesthood  to  iden- 
tify itself  with  its  deity  explains  the  later  treatment  of  the 
debt  owed  the  Levites  as  an  obligation  to  God.  Jesus 
says  nothing  about  religious  giving  by  his  followers;  he 
was  not  in  the  least  concerned  with  such  questions.  But 
Paul,  in  strict  conformity  to  the  principles  of  his  Master, 
puts  the  matter  on  the  proper  basis,  and  makes  all  giving 
voluntary,  not  legal:  as  God  hath  prospered  him.(^) 

The  implications  of  the  Kingdom  teaching  are  far- 
reaching.  This  universal,  redeemed  community  was  to 
be  co-extensive  with  mankind,  not  limited  to  Judea  and 
the  Jews.  Because  of  this  ultimate  solidarity  of  God 
and  men  in  a  divine  community,  all  men  should  be  de- 
livered from  undue  anxiety  about  the  future.  The  fruit- 
fulness  of  the  earth  and  the  toil  of  men  have  always  pro- 
duced enough  for  all,  and  wisely  directed  labor  of  all 
might  produce  immeasurably  more.  It  is  not  because  the 
bounty  of  God  has  failed,  but  because  the  greed  and  sel 
fishness  of  the  strong  has  taken  from  the  weak,  that  some 
men  are  choked  with  luxury  while  others  die  of  starvation. 
Famine  is  not  God's  curse  upon  the  race,  but  man's  curse 
on  his  fellow. 

C)   Num.  18:21-24;   Josh.   14:3,  4. 
C)    1  Cor.  16:2. 


JESUS  THE  IIEKALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  93 

And  this  is  why  Jesus  said  that  it  is  impossible  for  the 
rich  to  enter  his  Kingdom.  Orthodox  exegesis,  in  its  com- 
plicity with  those  who  exploit  and  its  fear  of  arousing 
their  wrath,  has  found  all  sorts  of  explanations  but  the 
right  one  of  the  uncommonly  plain  and  absolutely  decisive 
words  of  Jesus.  It  has  said  that  riches  tend  to  make  the 
heart  proud,  to  absorb  the  mind  in  many  cares,  to  lead 
men  to  worship  Mammon  rather  than  God,  and  other  tru- 
isms that  throw  no  light  on  the  teaching,  but  rather  ob- 
scure it  with  a  mass  of  unmeaning  generalities.  When  in 
fact,  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  so  sharp  and  clear  and  un- 
mistakable that  it  can  be  misunderstood  only  by  those  who 
are  determined  to  misunderstand.  Wealth  is  anti-social. 
Wealth  is  therefore  impossible  in  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
Because  wealth  is  never  the  honest  result  of  a  man's  effort 
as  producer,  but  always  the  result  of  exploitation  of  his 
brother.  'No  man,  by  any  amount  of  industry  and  thrift, 
ever  accumulated  a  fortune  from  the  product  of  his  own 
hand  and  brain — it  has  never  been  done  in  the  history  of 
the  race,  and  it  never  can  be  done.  The  rich  man  is  rich 
because  he  has  by  some  means,  socially  recognized  as  more 
or  less  ^^honest,"  obtained  possession  of  what  others  have 
produced.  No  rich  man  can  enter  the  Kingdom,  not  be- 
cause Jesus  pronounced  a  fiat  of  his  exclusion,  but  because 
he  has  excluded  himself  by  adopting  and  pursuing  a  mode 
of  life  incompatible  with  the  Kingdom.  Exploitation  is 
irreconcilable  with  love  of  the  brother  as  self;  it  is  the 
antipodes  of  brotherhood.  Love  of  the  brother  is  the  law 
of  the  Kingdom;  it  is  the  only  law  the  Kingdom  has. 
Wealth  and  the  Kingdom  cannot  coexist ;  the  rich  man  has 
worked  and  lived  for  himself,  and  so  he  cannot  belong  to 
a  brotherhood  of  love.  He  must  do  as  the  rich  young 
man  of  the  gospels  was  invited  to  do,  renounce  his  wealth 
and  follow  Jesus,  and  he  can  enter  the  Kingdom  on  no 
other  terms. 

Wealth  is  anti-social  and  unbrotherly,  in  the  same  way 
precisely  that  slavery  was.     Everybody  can  see  now  the 


94  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

essential  iniquity  of  permitting  some  men  to  own  others, 
in  order  that  the  owners  might  live  by  the  labor  of  the 
owned.  That  form  of  exploitation  has  come  to  be  in  very 
bad  odor.  But  the  odor  of  sanctity  still  clings  to  another 
form  of  exploitation,  and  we  are  very  slow  to  see  that 
Jesus  was  right  in  forbidding  men  to  own  things,  in  order 
that  they  may  live  by  the  labor  of  others.  There  are,  in 
fact,  but  two  ways  of  getting  a  living  in  this  w^orld:  by 
doing  something  or  by  owning  something.  The  former  is 
social  and  ethical:  the  latter  is  anti-social  and  unethical. 
Any  system  that  permits  one  man  to  say  to  another :  ''You 
shall  work  and  sweat  to  earn  bread  and  I  will  eat  it  with- 
out work,"  is  a  more  or  less  modified  form  of  slavery, 
and  is  absolutely  indefensible  on  ethical  grounds.  Such 
a  sj^stem  is  the  negation  of  the  Kingdom  that  Jesus  pro- 
claimed. ''A  noble  heart,"  says  Bishop  Barrow,  "will 
disdain  to  subsist  like  a  drone  on  the  honey  gained  by 
others'  labor;  or  like  vermin  to  filch  its  food  from  the 
public  granary ;  or  like  a  shark  to  prey  on  the  lesser  fry ; 
but  will  one  way  or  another  earn  his  subsistence,  for  he 
that  does  not  earn  can  hardly  be  said  to  own  his  daily 
bread." 

Jesus  condemns  wealth,  but  he  never  praises  poverty. 
Some  of  his  followers  have  been  less  wise  and  have  glori- 
fied poverty  in  his  name.  Men  like  Francis  of  Assisi  have 
believed  that  they  found  in  a  life  of  indigence  great  spir- 
itual compensations.  But  this  is  to  misread  both  the 
w^ords  of  Jesus  and  the  facts  of  life.  A  few  exceptional 
men  have  been  able  to  live  the  life  of  the  spirit  in  spite  of 
poverty,  but  never  by  means  of  it ;  and  only  the  few,  the 
uniquely  endowed,  have  been  able  to  surmount  the  ob- 
stacles of  privation  and  want,  and  reach  the  heights  of 
moral  excellence.  To  the  many,  poverty  interposes  in- 
surmountable barriers  to  the  higher  life.  A  rather  ad- 
vanced stage  of  wealth  is  shown  by  the  general  experience 
of  mankind  to  be  necessary  for  any  community  to  make 
appreciable  ethical   and  intellectual  advance.     The   Ben- 


JESUS  THE  HERALD  OF  THE   KINGDOM  95 

aissance,  the  age  of  Louis  Quatorze,  the  Elizabethan  period, 
were  times  of  great  social  prosperity  and  rapidly  increas- 
ing wealth. 

It  is  quite  true  that  spiritual  gifts  cannot  be  directly 
acquired  by  wealth ;  millions  will  not  buy  intelligence, 
culture,  the  enjoyment  of  music,  appreciation  of  art,  love 
of  literature,  a  pure  mind,  a  lofty  soul.  These  are  acquisi- 
tions of  effort,  painful,  long-continued;  each  must  win 
them  for  himself.  But  a  certain  degree  of  physical  com- 
fort, a  certain  amount  of  leisure,  are  the  indispensable 
conditions  of  winning  them.  Without  community  wealth, 
no  one  could  long  enjoy  bodily  vigor,  culture,  recreation 
and  social  intercourse.  Nothing  is  more  deadly  to  spir- 
itual interests  than  continual  struggle  with  grinding  pov- 
erty. Money  in  pocket  will  not  ensure  a  well-dressed 
man;  it  only  makes  him  possible;  he  may  be  a  Russell 
Sa£:e  and  elect  to  go  shabby,  though  possessor  of  millions ; 
but  the  man  without  money  has  no  choice — he  must  go  in 
rags. 

It  was  individual  wealth  that  Jesus  condemned ;  he 
had  nothing  to  say  against  community  wealth.  Com- 
munity wealth  means  possibility  of  a  worthy  life  for  all, 
but  does  not  make  certain  that  all  will  live  worthily.  It 
is  an  instmment  by  use  of  which  the  higher  life  is  realiz- 
able, a  material  good  through  which  we  may  acquire  the 
spiritual.  Education,  art,  letters,  are  the  costliest  prod- 
ucts of  civilization  and  the  most  precious.  To  have  them 
in  the  highest  degree  of  perfection  has  always  required 
great  expenditure  of  wealth.  It  can  never  be  otherwise ; 
in  any  state  of  society  the  best  things  will  be  produced  at 
heavy  cost.  But  they  are  worth  as  much  as  they  cost. 
And  their  value  will  be  incalculably  increased  when  they 
cease  to  be  the  perquisite  of  the  few  and  become  the  prop- 
erty of  all. 

What  Jesus  accomplished  for  the  world  was  the  moral- 
izing of  wealth.  He  was  not  an  economist,  but  a  prophet ; 
he  did  not  teach  science  but  conduct.     lie  marked  out  the 


96  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

way  to  the  larger  production  of  wealth  for  the  common 
good,  for  its  juster  distribution  and  nobler  use,  not  by 
giving  us  a  theory  of  social  progress,  but  by  emphasizing 
the  sole  practical  method  by  which  men  may  hope  to  ad- 
vance in  social  relations:  the  way  of  brotherhood,  the  life 
of  the  spirit,  the  selfless  life. 


V 


During  the  lifetime  of  Jesus  his  disciples  again  and 
again  showed  how  completely  they  had  failed  to  grasp  his 
idea  of  the  Kingdom.  He  took  great  pains  to  show  them 
how  wrong  they  were  and  to  replace  the  ideas  of  their  na- 
tion and  generation  with  his  own.  He  seems  to  have  made 
some  temporary  impression,  so  far  at  least  that  they  re- 
membered some  of  his  instructions  and  afterwards  wrote 
them  down.  But  he  had  hardly  expired  when  they  promptly 
reverted  to  type,  re-embraced  the  ideas  from  which  he  had 
temporarily  weaned  them,  and  proceeded  to  establish  a 
cult  and  form  an  organization  differing  as  much  from  the 
Kingdom  in  spirit  as  in  name.  Peter's  second  fall  was 
much  worse  than  his  first.  In  the  Gospels  he  is  shown  us 
in  the  act  of  denying  his  Master's  person ;  in  the  Acts  he 
is  shown  us  in  the  process  of  denying  his  Master's  doctrine. 
In  the  first  denial  he  was  conscious  of  his  disloyalty  and 
promptly  repented;  in  the  second  he  was  not  disloyal  but 
stupid,  a  blunderer,  and  so  he  remained  to  the  end. 

And  Paul  was,  as  he  boasted,  not  a  whit  behind  the  very 
chief  of  the  apostles  in  this  matter.  Together  with  Peter 
he  made  the  religion  of  Jesus  the  religion  of  a  cult.  Jesus 
teaches  that  men  are  brothers  because  they  are  sons  of  a 
common  Father :  Paul  teaches  that  Christians  are  members 
of  each  other,  because  they  have  become  members  of  a 
mystical  Body  of  Christ.  Jesus  laid  the  great  stress  on  his 
ethical  teaching;  the  aspostles,  and  Paul  above  all,  lay  the 
great  stress,  almost  the  whole  stress,  on  the  Person  and 


J'ESIJS  THE  IIEKALD  OF  THE   KliSTGDOM 


97 


Office  of  the  Christ.  It  is  noteworthy  that  though  Jesus 
fully  believed  himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  he  did  not  make 
belief  in  his  Messiahship  the  condition  of  entrance  into 
the  Kingdom.  Peter  and  Paul  made  such  belief  the  con- 
dition of  entrance  into  the  Church. 

When  the  enemies  of  Jesus  crucified  him,  they  did  him 
a  smaller  injury  than  his  disciples  did  him  by  perverting 
his  teachings.  The  death  of  Jesus  is  not  the  real  tragedy 
of  his  career,  but  the  denial  of  all  that  he  had  taught. 
The  change  was  so  subtly  made,  that  the  very  men  who 
made  it  were  not  conscious  of  what  they  were  doing.  And 
the  change  was  so  completely  made,  in  a  single  generation, 
that  the  publication  of  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels 
found  men's  minds  preoccupied  with  other  ideas  and  his 
teachings  made  little  impression.  The  Christians  of  A.  D. 
80,  and  afterward,  supposed  that  they  were  following 
closely  in  the  footsteps  of  their  Master,  when  they  had  in 
reality  cast  aside  the  important  part  of  his  instructions, 
and  adopted  an  ideal  of  life  altogether  foreign  to  his. 
It  required  nineteen  centuries  after  that  for  men  to  catch 
sight  once  more  of  what  Jesus  intended  and  hoped  to 
accomplish. 

Men  are  saying  continually,  and  almost  with  exultation, 
that  Christianity  has  failed.  Why  should  a  religion  suc- 
ceed that  has  never  been  believed  nor  practiced? 


CHAPTER  V 
JESUS  THE  SAVIOUR  OF  THE  WORLD 

Jesus  is  the  Greek  form  of  the  well-known  Hebrew  name, 
JeJio-shua,  more  common  in  its  shortened  form,  Joshua, 
which  means,  ^^Jehovah-help,"  or,  ^'^Jehovah  is  my  deliv- 
erer." The  name  was  by  no  means  uncommon  among  the 
Jews,  either  before  or  after  the  day  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth : 
but  everywhere  in  the  JSTew  Testament  it  is  implied,  if 
not  explicitly  declared,  that  his  name  was  generally  believed 
by  his  followers  to  be  not  an  ordinary  cognomen,  but 
(prophetically  descriptive  of  his  mission  and  work.  The 
Greek  word  of  similar  meaning  was  2o)T;f|^,  Saviour, 
Deliverer.  This  title  was  often  applied  to  rulers  or  gen- 
erals who  were  regarded  by  nations  as  having  effected  for 
them  some  form  of  deliverance.  It  is  found,  for  example, 
in  inscriptions  in  Asia  Minor,  as  one  of  the  titles  of  Au- 
gustus Caesar.  When  so  used,  it  always  implies  a  state 
of  captivity,  or  a  condition  of  great  danger,  from  which 
a  people  has  been  rescued. 

We  have  not  only  the  authority  of  apostles,  but  of  Jesus 
himself,  for  saying  that  he  conceived  his  mission  to  be 
one  of  Deliverance  for  men.  ''The  Son  of  Man  is  come 
to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost."(^)  ''The  Son 
of  Man  came  not  to  destroy  men's  lives  but  to  save 
them."(^)  "For  I  came  not  to  judge  the  world  but  to 
save  the  world." (^)  These  are  instances  in  which  Jesus 
is  said  so  to  have  described  himself  and  his  work  as  to 


(^)   Luke    19:10. 

(^)   Luke  9:50;    omitted   from   the  text   in  the  Revised   Version. 

(»)   John  12:47. 

98 


JESUS    THE    SAVTOUIi    OF    THE    WORLD  99 

make  his  mission  of  Deliverance  its  principal  feature.  But 
this  still  leaves  to  be  answered  the  question,  What  is  the 
content  of  this  idea  of  Deliverance?  In  what  sense  and 
to  what  degree  is  Jesus  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ?  There 
have  been  many  answers  to  this  question;  some  of  them 
deserve  careful  consideration. 


The  popular  idea  of  the  nature  of  salvation  is  vividly 
set  forth  in  "evangelistic"  campaigns.  Our  fathers  used 
to  talk  of  salvation  by  divine  grace;  we  have  come  to  be- 
lieve in  salvation  by  committees  and  a  Tabernacle  and  an 
"evangelist."  These  religious  mass-meetings,  commonly 
known  as  "revivals/'  are  considered,  by  the  majority  of 
Protestant  Christians  at  least,  a  sort  of  panacea  for  all  the 
ills  of  the  world.  And  the  Eoman  Catholics  have  their 
"missions,"  which  are  essentially  the  same  thing.  To  the 
student  of  religious  history,  modern  revivals  seem  little 
more  than  recrudescence  of  primitive  religious  orgies,  such 
as  marked  the  cult  of  Dionysius  and  Cybele,  and  are  found 
among  the  howling  dervishes  of  today.  The  violence  of 
emotion  manifested  by  their  votaries  is  directly  propor- 
tioned to  their  lack  of  culture,  and  rises  to  climax  among 
the  unlettered  negroes  of  the  South.  Religion  in  bondage 
to  the  emotions  is  always  extravagant,  shallow,  ephemeral 
and  even  dangerous.  It  often  illustrates  in  the  spiritual 
realm  the  principle  of  mechanics :  action  and  reaction  are 
equal.  !N"othing  can  equal  the  spiritual  fervor  of  a  com- 
munity during  a  revival — except  its  spiritual  deadness 
after  the  revival  is  over.  There  are  still  a  few  people  sane 
enough  to  question  whether  a  condition  of  alternate  chills 
and  fever  is  any  more  salubrious  for  the  soul  than  for  the 
body. 

It  may  be  objected,  however,  that  a  revival  should  be 
considered  rather  as  a  means  of  obtaining  salvation  than 
as  liaviric:  anv  direct  relation  to  salvation  itself.     If  wo 


100  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHEISTIANITY 

accept  that  view  of  the  case,  we  may  next  ask,  What  is  the 
popular  idea  of  salvation  that  makes  possible  the  revival 
and  the  evangelist?  And  the  answer  must  be,  that  the 
commonly  accepted  idea  of  salvation  is,  safety  and  hap- 
piness in  another  world.  Salvation  is  identified  in  the 
minds  of  ordinary  folk  with  "going  to  heaven  when  you 
die,"  just  as  to  be  lost  means  "to  go  to  hell."  Is  that  the 
idea  that  Jesus  stresses  in  his  teaching? 

'Not  at  all.  Jesus  offered  men  an  immediate  Deliver- 
ance, a  salvation  for  this  world,  the  consequences  of  which 
v/ould  be  valid  for  any  and  all  worlds.  This  Deliverance 
was  to  come  to  men  through  the  Kingdom  of  God.  And 
this  positive  content  of  his  teaching  was  balanced  by  the 
negative  idea,  what  it  was  to  be  "lost."  To  be  lost  was  to 
stray  away  from  the  Father's  home  and  love,  and  by  con- 
sequence to  forfeit  all  that  makes  life  worth  living.  "AVhat 
shall  it  profit  a  man  to  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his 
own  soul?"(^)  was  the  reading  of  our  old  version;  and  the 
Christian  world  came  with  a  unanimity  quite  remarkable 
to  interpret  this  to  mean  "fail  to  obtain  eternal  happi- 
ness." Eut  we  have  other  translations  now,  and  what  is 
more,  another  idea  of  this  saying  of  Jesus.  "What  will 
it  profit  a  man  to  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own 
life  ?"  we  read  to-day.  And  we  understand  by  this  "life" 
something  less  speculative  and  distant  than  the  ohl  inter- 
pretation recognized,  something  much  more  immediate  and 
certain  and  practical,  namely,  man's  entire  life,  present 
and  future,  but  especially  this  present  life,  with  all  its 
possibilities  of  making  character  for  the  future.  It  is  a 
life  of  love,  that  transcends  time  and  death. 

How  different  from  this  word  of  Jesus  the  preaching 
that  seems  to  find  most  favor  to-day — at  least,  it  draws 
the  biggest  crowds.  "Salvation,  salvation !  Come  and 
be  saved  !"  thunder  the  Billy  Sundays.  Saved  from  what  ? 
"From  the  wrath  of  God,"  answers  the  evangelist.     P>iit 

n"  Mark  8 :  36  :  Matt.  10:20;  Luke  0 :  25. 


JESUS   THE    SAVIOUR   OF   THE    WOULD  101 

this  is  not  the  Gospel,  it  is  a  relic  of  Judaism.  A  divine 
OQY'H  correlated  with  a  divine  righteousness,  is  taught 
throughout  the  Old  Testament,  and  Paul  and  most  of  the 
apostles  borrowed  the  thought  from  that  source  without 
questioning  its  truth.  But  the  distinction  of  Jesus  is  that 
he  rejected  this  teaching  concerning  God.  According  to 
him,  it  is  love  that  is  correlated  with  righteousness  in  the 
divine  character.  The  ''wrath"  of  God  can  be  reconciled 
with  his  teaching  only  by  so  spiritualizing  wrath  as  to 
evaporate  all  leal  significance  from  the  word. 

Yes,  according  to  Jesus,  there  is  no  wrath  of  God.  God 
is  our  Father ;  he  loves  us ;  he  has  never  ceased  to  love  us, 
all  his  creatures,  the  sinful  no  less  than  the  sinless.  His 
love  is  like  the  sunlight,  like  the  rain  and  dew,  bestowed 
with  equal  prodigality  on  all.  The  Jews  once  believed  in 
a  God  who  permitted  his  prophets  to  send  lying  oracles, 
and  even  himself  lied  to  his  own  prophets  on  occasion  ;(^) 
a  God  who  commanded  his  chosen  people  to  slaughter  all 
the  Canaanites;(")  a  God  who  would  bless  one  who  dashed 
the  babes  of  an  enemy  against  the  stones.  (^)  But  we  can- 
not believe  in  any  great  Hun  in  the  heavens  who  have 
learned  from  Jesus  what  God  is  like.  The  man  who  wrote 
the  seventh  Psalm  knew  no  better  than  to  say,  '""God  i? 
angry  with  the  wicked  every  day,'^  but  Jesus  knew  better, 
and  the  disciples  of  Jesus  should  know  better.  The  older 
religion  and  ethics  of  that  progressive  revelation  contained 
in  the  Bible  must  be  compared  with  and  corrected  by  that 
highest  revelation  that  God  made  of  himself  in  Jesus  the 
Christ.  Others  knew  God  in  part;  Jesus  only  had  such 
knowledge  of  the  Eternal  Father  as  makes  his  teaching 
final,  the  norm  of  all  religion  and  ethics  to  his  followers. 

(M  Thus  Elisha,  "the  man  of  God,"  is  said  to  have  sent  a  lying 
oracle  to  Benhadad,  King  of  Syria:  2  Kings  8:8,  10 — quite  legiti- 
mate in  dealing  with  an  enemy.  Ezekiel  tells  us  that  Jehovah  de- 
ceived his   own   prophets.     Eze.    14:19. 

(*)   Deut.  20:1(5-18,  and  cf.  Joshua  passim. 

C)    Ps.  137:0. 


102  FUNDAMElN^TALS  OF  CHEISTIANITY 

^'Come  and  be  saved!"  Saved  from  what?  ^Trom  hell," 
says  the  evangelist.  But  there  is  no  hell.  The  popular 
superstition  about  hell,  so  far  as  it  is  supposed  to  rest  on 
Scripture,  rests  on  a  complete  misunderstanding.  ''Hell" 
is  the  translation  in  our  common  English  version  of  two 
Greek  w^ords.  One  of  these  is  5Uq»  (Hades),  whicli 
means  simply  (as  the  alternative  phrase  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  has  it)  ''the  place  of  departed  spirits."  The  other 
word  is  Y^^vva  (Gehenna),  not  a  place  of  the  future 
world,  but  a  definite  place  in  this  world,  namely,  the 
Valley  of  Hinnon,  a  ravine  outside  the  walls  of  Jerusalem 
where  the  refuse  of  the  city  was  burned.  Jesus  speaks  of 
it  as  the  "Gehenna  of  fire,"  and  further  describes  it  as  a 
place  "where  their  worm  dieth  not  and  their  fire  is  not 
quenched.''  That  is,  since  fires  were  always  burning  in 
this  valley,  the  place  was  a  fitting  symbol  of  prolonged 
suffering.  For  Jesus  as  undoubtedly  taught  retribution 
in  the  life  to  come  for  sins  committed  in  this  life,  as  he 
undoubtedly  taught  nothing  about  "hell"  as  a  place  of 
future  unending  torment. 

The  popular  imagery  of  hell  and  its  accompanying 
theological  statements  are  mainly  derived  from  the  vision 
of  John  in  the  Eevelation — the  "lake  of  fire"  into  which 
he  beheld  the  wicked  cast.  But  it  is  no  more  rational  to 
suppose  that  this  "lake"  has  an  objective  existence,  than 
to  believe  literally  in  a  'New  Jerusalem  whose  streets  are 
pure  gold  and  its  gates  single  pearls.  These  are  the  fig- 
ures of  an  Oriental  writer,  of  a  naturally  poetic  tempera- 
ment, by  aid  of  which  he  sought  to  convey  the  truth  that 
character,  good  or  bad,  is  the  most  permanent  thing  we 
know;  that  we  shall  carry  with  us  into  the  next  world 
the  character  that  we  form  here;  that  moral  evil  involves 
consequences  imperfectly  represented  by  physical  suffer- 
ing, since  they  are  incomparably  worse:  loss  of  spiritual 
blessedness,  alienation  from  God  and  good,  that  must  re- 
main as  long  as  moral  evil  remains. 


JESUS   THE    SAVIOUR   OF   THE    WORLD  103 

But  why  should  a  disciple  of  Jesus  believe,  or  how  can 
he  believe  if  he  would,  that  God's  love  for  his  creatures 
ends  with  the  grave?  How  can  we  say,  as  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards and  his  generation  said,  that  the  blessed  will  look 
down  from  Heaven  on  the  torments  of  the  damned,  not 
with  a  pity  and  sympathy  that  would  mar  their  enjoy- 
ment of  eternal  felicity,  but  with  a  holy  joy,  seeing  in 
these  sufferings  the  crowning  glory  of  God,  the  vindication 
of  his  holiness  before  the  universe?  That  generation 
could  not  understand  that  one  who  could  be  content  with 
his  own  salvation  has  no  idea  of  what  real  salvation  con- 
sists. Nor  could  it  comprehend  that  one  who  could  rejoice 
over  the  sufferings  of  the  lost  would  be  himself  a  fitting 
subject  of  that  damnation  dealt  out  so  freely  by  his  theol- 
ogy to  others.  But  our  generation  can  understand  that  it 
is  vain  to  exhort  men  in  the  name  of  God  to  forgive  their 
enemies,  if  that  same  God  so  hates  his  enemies  as  to  cast 
them  into  everlasting  fire.  We  have  been  shuddering 
much  the  last  few  years  over  the  atrocities  of  war.  What 
are  the  atrocities  of  war,  compared  with  the  atrocities  of 
theology  ? 

He  who  maintains  that,  but  for  fear  of  a  future  hell, 
men  would  rush  into  unbridled  license,  unconsciously  be- 
trays his  own  ethical  limitations.  He  shows  himself  to  be 
convinced  that  the  only  successful  appeal  to  men  is  through 
their  selfish  fears,  possibly  because  he  is  secretly  con- 
scious that  he  is  himself  swayed  by  selfish  impulses,  and 
does  not  believe  in  his  heart  of  hearts  that  there  are  in 
the  world  any  interests  worth  considering  but  his  own.  In 
addition,  he  indicates  that  he  probably  has  a  low  and  gross 
idea  of  pleasures,  and  in  his  secret  thinking  identifies 
pleasure  with  vice.  The  man  of  nobler  impulses,  of  unsel- 
fish aims,  who  delights  in  refined  pleasures,  will  not  be  so 
afraid  to  trust  men  as  a  whole  to  behave  themselves  de- 
cently, if  the  whip  of  liell  is  no  longer  flourished  in  their 
faces. 


104:  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CPTUTSTTANITY 

A  better  exegesis  of  Scripture,  a  better  understanding 
of  the  nature  of  God,  a  better  ethic,  have  together  almost 
deprived  even  the  most  orthodox  of  their  last  hope  of 
eternal  damnation. 


II 

An  idea  of  salvation  differing  from  this  popular  notion 
has  been  held  by  the  ascetics  and  mystics  of  all  ages. 
Salvation  has  seemed  to  them  the  attainment  of  ^'holi- 
ness," or  the  moral  perfection  of  the  individual.  The 
ascetics  proposed  to  reach  this  goal  by  withdrawal  from 
the  w^orld  and  '^mortification  of  the  flesh" — scourgings, 
fastings,  vigils,  and  the  like.  The  method  of  the  mystics 
was  withdrawal  from  the  world  and  a  life  of  contempla- 
tion. No  argument  is  required  to  show  that  this  is  a 
worthier  ideal  of  salvation  than  that  proposed  by  the 
evangelist.  The  philosopher  and  the  saint  have  turned 
their  faces  towards  the  light  and  are  moving  upward. 
They  have  done  much  as  ethical  teachers  of  the  race. 
Men  as  widely  separated  in  time  and  ways  of  thinking  as 
Epictetus,  Marcus  Aurelius  and  Bernard  of  Clairvaux 
have  urged  this  ideal  upon  men,  with  no  small  success. 
But  both  methods  come  from  the  pagan  Orient;  both  are 
egoistic;  both  are  anti-social;  both  are,  therefore,  un- 
christian. 

Since  this  notion  of  salvation  is  only  a  baptized  pagan- 
ism— Aristotle's  hedonism  somewhat  spiritualized — we 
cannot  expect  to  find  the  theory  and  practice  of  it  among 
Christians  much  exceeding  the  best  pagan  ideals  and  at- 
tainments. Greek  sages  found  a  point  of  contact  between 
this  theory  of  salvation  and  their  racial  love  of  beauty. 
They  thought  of  beauty  as  perfection:  they  conceived  it  as 
symmetry,  balance,  proportion,  enough  of  everything,  too 
much  of  nothing.  Their  first  effort  to  realize  this  ideal  of 
beauty  was  through  form  and  color;  but  they  discovered 


JESUS   THE    SAVIOUli   OF    THE    WOULD  105 

at  length  in  character  and  conduct  a  still  higher  ideal  of 
perfection.  There  is  an  inseparable  connection,  therefore, 
between  Greek  art  and  Greek  etliics,  the  aim  of  both  being 
the  embodiment  of  an  ideal  perfection,  of  which  symmetry 
is  the  fundamental  principle,  and  the  result  x6  '/aXov, 
the  beautiful.  Art  makes  its  appeal  to  the  soul  through 
the  senses  of  sight  and  hearing;  character  and  conduct 
appeal  directly  to  the  sj^iritual  intuition,  the  inner  sense 
of  fitness,  proportion,  beauty.  This  is  why  the  feeling  for 
beauty  has  in  all  ages  been  clearly  perceived  to  be  a  power- 
ful ally  of  the  forces  that  make  for  righteousness;  and 
when  art  and  morals  become  divorced,  art  becomes  lawless 
and  life  unlovely — as  Puritanism  once  demonstrated. 

The  intellectual  clarity  of  the  Greeks  led  them  to  recog- 
nize danger  in  egoistic  emphasis  of  moral  perfection. 
The  Stoics,  in  particular,  strove  against  this  error,  witii 
a  good  measure  of  success.  They  did  much  to  weaken 
the  barriers  of  class  and  race  feeling,  and  prepare  the 
way  for  universal  brotherhood  of  men.  The  Stoics  were, 
in  truth,  not  far  from  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  medi?p- 
val  ascetics  and  mystics  never  reached  this  widcness  of 
vision;  they  went  to  school  rather  to  the  C\Tiics,  whose 
chief  distinction  was  to  cherish  a  proud  scorn  of  pride 
and  to  find  their  highest  pleasure  in  contempt  of  pleas- 
ures. 

The  mystical  element  in  modern  Christianity  gives  to  it 
much  of  its  spiritual  fervor  and  elevation:  yet  is  at  the 
same  time  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  weakness,  since  it 
encourages  an  egoistic,  exclusive,  Pharisaic  type  of  re- 
ligion. Even  granting  its  point  of  view  as  partially  true, 
experience  convinces  most  people  that  perfect  keeping  of 
the  Law  is  possible  only  to  such  as  cherish  a  narrow  and 
inadequate  conception  of  the  scope  of  moral  Law.  To  one 
Avho  regards  his  ethical  obligations  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  ]\rount,  a  Plinrisnic  self-satisfaction  bc' 
comes  permanently  impossible, 


106  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

The  mystics,  however,  approached  the  truth  so  nearly 
that  their  missing  it  becomes  a  wonder.  They  held  part 
of  the  truth.  They  were  right  in  exalting  spirit  above 
flesh.  If  the  outer  life  becomes  too  rich,  the  inner  life 
will  not  be  rich  enough.  Life  does  not  consist  in  what 
we  possess,  but  in  how  we  possess  it.  The  mystics  were 
right  in  considering  moral  perfection  as  the  goal  of  salva- 
tion. Jesus  regarded  the  Deliverance  of  the  individual 
that  he  came  to  effect  as  nothing  less  than  his  restoration 
to  wholeness,  to  ethical  normality.  Salvation  is  to  have  all 
our  functions  and  activities  brought  into  harmony  with 
each  other,  and  with  the  Power  that  controls  and  directs 
all  things.  'Not  merely  freedom  from  sin,  but  capacity  to 
work  righteousness,  is  the  promised  Deliverance.  But  a 
man  cannot  be  thus  set  in  harmony  with  himself,  without 
being  set  right  with  all  his  fellows.  Internal  harmony 
cannot  exist  while  external  disharmony  prevails.  Social 
salvation  and  individual  salvation  must  proceed  together, 
and  neither  can  be  perfected  apart  from  the  other. 

Hence,  though  individual  perfection  is  the  ultimate  goal, 
it  is  not  the  immediate  aim.  As  St.  Ambrose  said,  ''We 
heal  our  own  wounds  in  binding  those  of  others."  The 
highest  welfare  of  each  man  is  one  tissue  with  the  highest 
welfare  of  his  social  group ;  and,  equally,  the  highest  wel- 
fare of  mankind  includes  the  happiness  and  perfection  of 
the  individual.  But  happiness  and  perfection  are  subject 
to  a  law  that  governs  all  the  highest  values :  they  cannot  be 
attained  as  direct  objects  of  quest,  but  are  by-products  of 
the  quest  for  other  things.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  say- 
ing, "He  who  seeks  his  life  loses  it,  but  he  who  loses  his 
life  finds  it."  Altruism  is  the  only  way  to  social  progress, 
but  also  the  only  way  to  individual  perfection.  This  is 
the  Great  Paradox  of  Jesus  and  his  profoundest  truth. 

For  always  he  taught  that  salvation  is  not  the  quest  of 
the  individual  after  his  own  spiritual  good,  but  strenuous 
endeavor  to  secure  the  good  of  others.     In  scientific  phrase. 


JESUS   THE    SAVIOUR   OF    THE    WORLD  107 

if  he  bad  been  acquainted  with  it,  be  migbt  bave  said  tbat 
salvation  is  not  individual  but  biological,  not  personal  but 
racial,  not  the  rescue  of  men  singly  but  tbe  rescue  of  so- 
ciety. Organized  religion,  tbe  Cburcb  and  its  agencies, 
have  up  to  this  time  directed  effort  to  the  salvation  of  men 
after  tbe  fashion  of  a  fire  department,  summoned  to  a 
great  conflagration  threatening  destruction  to  a  whole  city, 
that  should  busy  itself  with  the  rescue  of  a  few  from  this 
house  and  one  or  two  from  that  building,  but  make  no 
attempt  to  put  out  the  fire.  Social  salvation  is  putting  out 
the  fire,  in  the  first  place,  and  then  investigating  its  causes 
with  a  view  to  preventing  other  fires.  All  experience  and 
analoffv  show  the  utter  futilitv  of  the  method  religion  has 
pursued  for  ages,  with  the  result  of  bettering  the  world 
so  little  that  men  sincerely  wonder  if  it  is  not  growing 
worse. 

'No  man  can  solve  the  problem  of  sin  for  himself  alone 
or  solve  it  by  himself,  nor  can  he  escape  by  himself  from 
sin,  because  sin  is  social  as  well  as  individual.  To  make 
possible  escape  for  one,  there  must  be  escape  for  all;  we 
are  all  members  of  one  another,  in  a  profounder  sense  than 
the  apostle  realized  when  he  wrote  those  words.  Instead  of 
seeking  personal  salvation,  one  must  seek  the  salvation  of 
his  neighbors,  and  in  this  social  salvation  he  will  find  his 
own.  To  reverse  the  process,  and  make  his  own  salvation 
the  quest,  is  to  cut  oneself  off  from  social  salvation  and 
make  his  own  impossible.  This  is  to  save  life  and  yet  lose 
it.  The  true  saint  is  not  the  man  withdrawn  from  the 
world,  and  seeking  a  purification  of  self  from  all  evil,  but 
the  man  living  in  the  world  who  is  seeking  to  make  the 
evil  good,  trying  with  all  his  powers  to  increase  the  intelli- 
gence, beauty  and  happiness  of  the  entire  social  order. 

Ill 

Jesus  seemed  always  more  concerned  with  what  hap- 
pens to  a  man  after  he  is  ^'^saved"  than  with  the  process. 


108  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

As  compared  with  the  average  Christian  preacher,  and  cer- 
tainly as  compared  with  the  "evangelist/'  he  might  be 
described  as  saying  nothing  about  the  process.  It  is  Life 
that  is  the  great  thing  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  does 
not  always  use  the  word,  but  ten-tenths  of  his  words  have 
to  do  with  life — that  is  to  say,  with  living.  Usually  he 
speaks  of  the  Life,  with  the  emphatic  definite  article. 
Sometimes  he  calls  it  "eternal"  (aeonian,  agelong)  life. 
The  word  "life''  occurs  often  enough  in  the  Synoptics  to 
umrk  it  as  a  characteristic  of  the  thought  of  Jesus,  and  only 
a  little  careful  reading  is  needed  to  convince  us  that  where 
the  word  does  not  occur  the  idea  is  everywhere  present. 
The  fourth  Gospel  was  written,  according  to  its  author, 
expressly  to  persuade  men  to  believe  (trust)  in  Jesus  and 
so  "have  Life  in  his  Name."  Further  than  this,  Jesus  is 
represented  as  declaring  this  to  be  his  great  mission  on 
earth : 

Life, 


I  came  that  they  may  have  Lii 
And  may  have  it  abundantly.  ( 


It  is  this  new  Life  in  him,  as  the  result  of  accepting  his 
teaching  as  the  guide  of  life,  the  product  of  personal  trust 
in  him,  that  Jesus  has  in  mind  continually,  as  he  makes 
plain  in  all  his  discourses  about  the  Kingdom.  Salvation 
is  commonly  conceived  nowadays  as  deliverance  from  di- 
vine condemnation  on  account  of  sin.  Ever  since  Mel- 
anchthon,  the  accepted  definition  of  the  "gospel"  has  been 
"the  assurance  of  forgiveness  of  sins  through  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ."  But  what  Jesus  lays  stress  upon  is  deliv- 
erance from  self  and  resulting  devotion  of  life  to  others. 

If  any  man  would  come  after  me, 
Let  him  renounce  self, 
And  take  up  his  cross  daily, 
And  follow  me.(^) 


(M    'Tohn    10:10. 

{-)    Luke  9:23;   cf.   12:27;  Matt.   10:.38;    1G:24;   Mark  8:34. 


JESUS   THE   SAVIOUE   OF    THE    WOKLD  109 

Whosoever  would  become  great  among  you 

Will  be  your  servant; 
And  whosoever  would  be  first  among  you 

Will  be  slave  of  all. (^) 

Christian  moralists  have  ever  found  this  doctrine  of  re- 
nunciation a  doctrine  too  hard  for  them,  and  have  sought 
by  all  means  in  their  power  to  soften  the  words  of  Jesus 
and  turn  them  aside  from  their  plain  intent.  For  this 
renunciation  of  self,  they  have  substituted  self-renuncia- 
tion; in  place  of  his  unselfishness  they  exhort  us  to  an 
enlightened  selfishness — the  sacrifice  of  a  lower  good  to 
gain  a  higher.  In  their  desire  to  make  religion  easy  for 
men,  preachers  have  been  tempted  to  be  discreetly  silent 
about  the  yoke  and  the  cross,  but  Jesus  never  concealed  the 
fact  that  to  be  his  disciple  is  the  acid  test  of  manhood. 
His  idea  of  the  cross,  as  Ruskin  says,  ^^has  been  exactly 
reversed  by  modern  Protestantism,  which  sees  in  the  cross, 
not  a  furca  to  which  it  is  to  be  nailed,  but  a  raft  on  which 
it,  and  all  its  valuable  properties,  are  to  be  floated  into 
Paradise." 

The  law  of  renunciation  is  not  popular,  but  it  is  im- 
perative. We  must  deny  self  or  deny  God.  The  result 
of  putting  this  truth  into  the  background  is  a  saltless 
Church,  that  has  lost  its  antiseptic  power — a  Church  that 
has  forgotten  the  high  ideals  of  its  (nominal)  Head,  and 
has  learned  to  speak  the  world's  language  and  live  the 
world's  life ;  a  Church  that  puts  men's  consciences  to  sleep 
instead  of  wakening  them,  that  offers  men  a  soft  couch  in 
place  of  a  cross,  that  finds  it  easier  to  camouflage  the 
world's  pits  of  iniquity  and  misery  than  to  find  a  remedy 
for  them. 

It  would  have  been  fortunate,  perhaps,  if  Christian 
people  had  accustomed  themselves  to  use  of  another  equally 
Scriptural  word  in  place  of  "salvation,"  namely,  redemp- 
tion.    Salvation   seems   to   imply   chiefly,    if  not  wholly, 

n'Malt.  20:20,  27:  ef.  28:11  :  Mark  \):^7>;   10:44:  Luke  22:2G. 


110  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

rescue  froiu  impending  danger,  while  redemption  implies 
restoration  to  a  former  status.  We  are  saved  from  some 
thing;  we  are  redeemed  to  something.  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells 
struggles  to  express  a  thought  like  this,  when  he  says. 
^^Religion  is  the  development  and  synthesis  of  the  con- 
flicting and  divergent  motives  of  the  unconverted,  and  the 
identification  of  the  individual  life  with  the  immortal 
purpose  of  God."(^)  The  thought  of  Mr.  Wells  suffers 
from  his  too  sophisticated  vocabulary.  Jesus  says  the 
same  thing  and  says  it  much  better,  because  more  simply : 

My  food  is  to  do  the  will  of  Him  who  sent  me, 
And  to  finish  his  work.(^) 

And  just  there  we  reach  the  crux  of  the  whole  matter: 
what  is  the  will  of  God  ?  Christians  have  always  recog- 
nized that  doing  the  divine  wdll  is  the  essence  of  religion, 
but  have  given  all  sorts  of  answers  as  to  what  this  will  is. 
While  always  talking  about  it,  they  have  had  for  the  most 
part  only  very  hazy  ideas  of  what  constitutes  the  purpose 
of  God  in  redemption  and  have  often  interpreted  the  di- 
vine will  in  terms  of  their  own  desires. 

So  it  has  come  about  that  most  people  who  call  them- 
selves Christians  have  scarcely  the  faintest  notion  of  what 
Jesus  taught  and  required  as  the  fulfilment  of  God's  will. 
They  talk  vaguely  about  '^^leading  the  Christian  life,"  by 
which  they  show  how  deep-rooted  is  the  Pharisaic  concep- 
tion of  religion  as  the  avoidance  of  gross  sins  and  the 
performance  of  conventional  duties.  In  those  inclined  to 
be  Puritanical,  the  Christian  life  appears  to  be  mostly 
avoidance  of  certain  amusements  long  by  common  consent 
tabooed.  Those  who  have  progressed  a  little  further  tell 
us  that  a  Christian  must  "be  a  good  citizen,"  by  which 
they  mean  that  he  must  obey  the  laws,  pay  his  taxes  with- 
out dodging  and  vote  regularly.  O  yes !  if  he  would  be 
perfect,  he  must  not  evade  jury  duty.     That  to  be  a  good 

C)   "God  the  Invisible  King,"  p.  94.     New  York,  1917. 
(')   John    4:34. 


JESUS   THE    SAVIOUE   OF   THE    WOKED  111 

Christian  or  a  good  citizen  means  anything  more  than 
these  things,  Christians  in  general  have  no  more  compre- 
hension than  if  Jesus  had  never  lived  or  the  Gospels  never 
been  v^'ritten.  And  it  is  impossible,  or  virtually  so,  to 
induce  ^^good''  Christian  people  to  go  beneath  these  super- 
ficial matters  and  see  that  Jesus  taught  a  social  gospel,  not 
an  individualistic — that  he  was  more  concerned  with  the 
salvation  of  men  in  society  than  with  men  as  separate  enti- 
ties. This  is  so  far  from  being  understood  by  the  majority 
of  Christians  that  they  stare  and  gasp  when  such  an  idea 
is  suggested,  and  at  once  break  forth  into  indignant  de- 
nial. 

Our  difficulty  in  urging  forward  the  Kingdom  is  almost 
exactly  the  opposite  to  that  which  Jesus  experienced.  The 
thinking  of  his  generation  was  less  foreign  to  his  ideas 
than  the  thinking  of  ours.  The  coming  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  was  what  the  Jew  understood  to  be  salvation,  the 
Deliverance  of  his  race  and  nation.  ^'Saviour"  and  "^les- 
siah''  were  one  to  him.  The  deliverance  that  he  looked 
for  was  so  entirely  social  and  political,  especially  the  latter, 
that  Jesus  was  compelled  to  stress  rather  heavily  at  times 
the  idea  of  individual  redemption  and  insist  that  it  was 
included  in  any  scheme  of  social  redemption,  ^icodemus 
found  it  impossible  to  comprehend  this.  He  could  easily 
understand  why  great  social  changes  were  necessary  and 
possible,  but  why  any  individual  change?  Was  not  he  a 
son  of  Abraham  ?  What  more  could  be  asked  to  make 
any  man  an  heir  of  the  Kingdom?  In  our  day  it  is  the 
other  aspect  of  truth  that  demands  stress.  Men  must  be 
taught  with  iteration  that  not  seldom  becomes  tiresome, 
that  a  disciple  of  Jesus  is  he,  and  he  only,  who  accepts 
the  Kingdom  ideal  of  Jesus  and  who  tries  to  convert  to 
this  ideal  the  society  of  which  he  is  a  part.  Only  such  a 
man  has  fully  experienced  the  "salvation"  that  Jesus  came 
to  brine:  to  men.  When  we  all  learn  to  practice  social 
righteousness,  moral  perfection  of  individuals  will  come 
almost  of  itself. 


112  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

IV 

Very  important  in  this  necessary  process  of  orientation 
is  a  redefining  of  terms.  Our  entire  religious  vocabulary 
requires  to  be  recast,  reinterpreted,  recharged  with  mean- 
ing, to  make  it  fit  the  idea  of  salvation  taught  by  Jesus. 
A  few  specific  instances  will  make  plain  the  necessity  and 
the  method. 

There  is  no  commoner  word  on  our  lips  than  '^fellow- 
ship," and  none  from  which  the  true  significance  has  more 
completely  evaporated.  ''Fellowiship  with  God"  we  have 
come  to  think  of  as  some  mystical  union  of  our  spirits  with 
the  Divine,  accompanied  or  followed  by  some  remarkable 
emotional  and  ethical  experiences.  But  fellowship  with 
God  is  not  peace  of  mind  or  unity  with  the  divine  will  or 
any  other  subjective  state;  it  is  wholly  an  objective  thing, 
most  practical.  Fellowship  is  partnership.  To  have  fel- 
lowship with  God  is  to  become  his  partner  in  the  great 
enterprise  of  rescuing  the  world  from  the  grip  of  evil. 
In  like  manner,  to  have  ^^fellowship  with  Christ's  suffer- 
ings," of  which  Paul  writes  so  eloquently,  is  not  to  feel 
sympathetic  pangs  as  we  read  of  his  poverty,  his  loneli- 
ness, his  scornful  rejection,  his  agonizing  death.  It  is 
rather  to  share  actively  whatever  may  be  necessary  of  like 
experiences,  in  order  to  be  his  partners  in  the  glorious  en- 
terprise of  saving  humanity.  And  ^^Christian  fellowship" 
is  not  merely  to  cultivate  pleasant  relations  with  our  fellow- 
Christians  and  enjoy  their  society,  but  to  be  partners  with 
them  in  carrying  on  the  work  of  redeeming  men  for  which 
Jesus  gave  his  life. 

A  right  view  of  "salvation"  will  give  new  meaning  to 
another  much  abused  phrase  in  common  use,  "Christian 
unity."  Jesus  prayed  for  a  unity  of  believers;  we  are 
straining  every  nerve  to  bring  about  a  imity  of  beliefs; 
and  we  can  see  no  difference  between  the  two  ideals.  Our 
objective  is  the  wrong  one,  and  we  shall  never  get  any- 
where by  our  present  method;  or,  if  we  do,  we  shall  get 


JESUS   TIlK    SAVIOUR   OF   THE    \VOKLt>  llo 

somewhere  not  worth  reaching.  An  irreducible  minimum 
of  creed,  ^'a  general  union  of  total  dissent/'  as  Lowell  sar- 
castically calls  it,  if  it  were  possible,  would  not  be  w^orth 
striving  after.  But  we  shall  have  unity  of  beliefs  in 
religion  when  we  have  unity  of  beliefs  in  politics  and 
science  and  business,  or  unity  of  taste  in  music  and  paint- 
ing and  literature. 

Conventions  to  discuss  unity  are  futile,  because  they 
always  concentrate  on  questions  of  creed,  wdien  the  real 
issue  is  a  question  of  deed.  The  only  unity  possible  or 
desirable  is  a  unity  of  believers,  the  willingness  of  all 
Christians  to  be  one  in  the  prosecution  of  a  common  task. 
Such  unity  must  be  based,  as  all  social  and  political  unity 
is  based,  on  the  principle  of  inclusion,  not  of  exclusion. 
If  a  man  does  not  agree  with  us  on  the  merits  of  a  poem 
or  a  painting,  we  do  not  say  that  he  is  no  gentleman  and 
refuse  to  dine  with  him.  If  a  man  differs  from  us  about 
the  tariff  or  government  ownership  of  railways  we  do  not 
advocate  his  expulsion  from  the  United  States  as  an  un- 
desirable citizen.  We  maintain  social  and  political  rela- 
tions and  cooperation  in  spite  of  all  such  differences. 
Christian  unity,  like  salvation,  is  social,  not  intellectual. 
The  vague  and  timid  efforts  at  cooperation  in  Christian 
enterprises  in  past  years,  and  the  larger  cooperation  in  a 
measure  forced  upon  us  by  the  recent  war,  point  out  the 
only  possible  way  of  advance.  The  war  did  not  last  long 
enough  to  form  in  us  a  habit  of  cooperation.  Sectarian 
feeling,  almost  forcibly  repressed  for  a  time,  showed  a 
tendency  to  react  with  fresh  violence  as  soon  as  the  war 
pressure  was  removed. 

"Holiness"  marks  another  idea  that  demands  readjust- 
ment to  the  true  conception  of  salvation.  Anything  was 
"holy"  to  the  Jew,  not  because  of  its  ethical  character,  but 
because  it  had  been  set  apart  to  the  service  of  Jehovah. 
We  have  so  emphasized  the  element  of  aloofness  as  to  let  the 
element  of  service  escape  altogether  from  our  idea  of  holi- 


114  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

ness.  Yet  service  was  the  principal  thing,  the  very  rela- 
tion that  constituted  the  holiness.  We  have  made  for  our- 
selves an  ideal  of  holiness  that  is  essentially  ascetic  and 
egoistic.  Our  favorite  texts  with  which  we  have  defined 
and  defended  our  ideal  have  been  such  as:  ^'Come  out 
from  among  them  and  be  ye  separate,"  (^)  ^^^l  ^Ture  re- 
ligion and  undefiled  is  ...  to  keep  oneself  unspotted 
from  the  world," (^)  or  perhaps,  '^A  glorious  church,  not 
having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing." (^)  It  is  evi- 
dent that  we  must  again  emphasize  service  as  the  chief  ele- 
ment of  holiness,  and  get  back  to  the  original  altruistic 
ideal  of  the  world.  Holiness  should  not  mean  to  us  a  sel- 
fish withdrawal  beyond  the  influence  of  evil,  but  a  strenu- 
ous conflict  with  evil.  It  is  not  a  life  of  self-exaltation, 
but  a  life  of  self-immolation,  or  self-surrender — a  life  de- 
voted to  realizing  the  purpose  of  God  in  uplifting  men  out 
of  the  slough  of  sin.  We  must  care  much  more  about 
cleaning  up  the  foul  places  of  the  world  than  for  keeping 
our  own  garments  immaculate,  if  we  would  be  really  holy. 
^^Christian  work" — is  there  a  more  abused  phrase  in  all 
our  religious  vocabulary?  It  has  come  to  mean  little 
more  than  getting  up  bazaars  and  suppers  and  other  Mrs. 
Jellyby  activities,  and  serving  on  the  numerous  commit- 
tees of  our  much  organized  churches.  Most  of  the  so- 
called  "Christian  work"  of  our  day  is  about  as  valuable 
as  the  buzzing  of  flies  on  a  window-pane :  there  is  no  end 
of  bustle  and  hustle,  but  nothing  of  real  value  is  accom- 
plished. Viewed  in  the  light  of  delivering  men  from  sin, 
of  rescuing  society  from  its  manifold  evils,  of  making  this 
a  better  world  for  men  to  live  in,  as  a  means  of  making 
better  men  to  live  in  this  world,  what  could  be  more 
pathetically  childish  or  more  tragically  futile  than  most 
of  our  "Christian  work"  ? 


(M    2  Cor.  6:17,  quoted  from  Isa.  52:11, 
{-)   Jam.    1:27. 
(»)    Eph.    5:27. 


CHAPTER  VI 


SAUL  THE  URBAI^  PHARISEE 
I 

Two  facts  stand  out  above  all  others  in  the  formative  pe- 
riod of  SauFs  life :  he  was  city-bred,  and  he  was  rabbi-bred. 
He  tells  lis  that  he  Avas  a  native  of  Tarsus,  in  the  province 
of  Cilicia ;  ^'no  mean  city/^  as  he  justifiably  boasts,  for  it 
ranked  with  Athens  and  Alexandria  as  a  centre  of  educa- 
tion and  culture,  since  it  rejoiced  in  a  university  of  the 
first  rank  and  was  the  home  of  poets  and  sages.  It  re- 
tained this  eminence  for  several  centuries,  and  celebrated 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  like  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and 
Chrysostom,  studied  there.  It  is  not  likely  that  Saul 
attended  the  heathen  schools  of  his  native  town;  Jewish 
prejudice  would  be  too  strong  for  that;(^)  but  he  could 
hardly  fail  to  absorb  some  of  the  culture  of  the  place,  and 
he  shows  acquaintance  with  at  least  one  of  its  poets,  Aratus, 
from  whom  he  quoted  in  his  address  at  Athens  the  line. 

For  of  him  also  we  are  offspring. 

Of  Saul's  parentage  we  know  positively  only  one  fact, 
that  his  father,  though  a  Hebrew,  was  a  Roman  citizen; 
but  inferences  drawn  from  this  fact  are  extremely  uncer- 
tain, since  we  do  not  know  how  this  citizenship  was  secured. 
Of  his  extraction,  Paul  tells  us  further  that  he  was  "of 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  a  Hebrew  of  Hebrews." (^)  This 
indicates  a  pride   of  race  in  himself  and  family,   from 

O   The    Palestinian   Talmud    says:    ''Cursed    be    he   who   breeds 
swine,  and  who  teaches  his  son  the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks." 
C)   Phil.  3:5;  Rom.  11:1. 

115 


IIG  I'UNDAMEJsTALS  OF  CllllISTIA^'ITY 

which  we  may  fairly  infer  that  his  training  would  be  of 
strict  Jewish  type,  beginning  in  the  home  and  continued 
in  the  synagogue  scliool.  Almost  literally  from  infancy 
he  would  be  taught  the  Law,  both  in  word  and  in  scrupu- 
lous observance.  This  theoretic  and  practical  reverence 
for  the  Law  continued  to  be  characteristic  of  him,  so  that 
in  later  years  he  could  say  with  perfect  honesty,  no  man 
challenging,  ''as  to  the  righteousness  that  is  in  the  Law, 
blameless.'' 

In  his  speech  to  the  multitude  at  Jerusalem,  Paul  said, 
"I  am  a  Jew,  born  in  Tarsus  of  Cilicia,  but  brought  up  in 
this  city,  taught  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel  according  to  the 
strictness  of  the  Law  of  the  fathers,  being  a  zealot  for 
God,  even  as  you  all  are  to-day." (')  This  implies  that 
at  an  age  not  later  than  twelve  or  thirteen  he  was  sent  to 
Jerusalem,  the  centre  of  Jewish  culture,  to  complete  his 
education.  From  this  fact  it  seems  a  tolerably  certain 
inference  that  his  family  was  one  of  wealth,  or  at  least 
well-to-do;  no  mere  peasant  or  artisan  could  have  sent  his 
son  to  Jerusalem  in  this  way.  Luke  tells  us  incident- 
ally(^)  that  Paul  had  a  nephew  in  Jerusalem  towards  the 
end  of  his  life,  and  some  have  inferred  that  the  apostle 
may  have  had  a  married  sister  in  the  city  and  lived  with 
her  while  studying  the  Law.  But  we  do  not  know  that 
his  sister  was  in  Jerusalem  at  any  time,  as  absolutely 
nothing  is  said  about  that. 

Like  all  Jewish  boys,  Saul  was  taught  a  trade,  no  doubt 
before  he  left  Tarsus,  since  his  trade  was  tent-making  and 
that  was  a  prominent  Cilician  industry.  It  included 
weaving  the  cloth  of  wdiich  tents  were  made,  a  heavy  can- 
vas made  from  the  long  hair  of  goats,  with  wliicli  the  hills 
of  that  region  then  abounded,  l^othing  can  be  inferred 
from  this  as  to  the  wealth  or  social  status  of  his  family, 
for  the  Jews  had   a  proverb  to  the  effect  tliat   ''lie  wlio 

(M    Acts   22::^. 

(-)  Acts  2;j:](;. 


SAUL   THE    URBAN    PHARISEE  llT 

brings  up  a  son  without  a  trade,  brings  him  up  to  be  a 
thief."  His  trade  was  more  an  anchor  to  windward  than 
a  real  dependence,  though  at  Thessalonica  and  Corinth 
Paul  found  it  very  serviceable  to  him,  since  he  was  thus 
enabled  to  support  himself  while  he  preached  the  gospel 
to  tlie  people,  and  so  convinced  them  of  his  utter  disinter- 
estedness— as  he  put  it,  he  sought  not  theirs  but  them.(^) 

This,  however,  was  but  a  little  eddy  in  the  main  cur- 
rent of  the  apostle's  life.  Nothing  that  we  know  about 
him  warrants  us  in  supposing  that  he  ever  had  the  disci- 
pline of  want  and  struggle ;  he  never  enjoyed  close  contact 
with  the  soil  and  the  toilers  of  his  world.  Easy  circum- 
stances and  a  habit  more  studious  than  active  may  be 
assumed  during  the  pre-christian  years  of  his  life.  His 
associations  were  with  those  who  think  rather  than  Avith 
those  that  do,  and  in  spite  of  his  trade  he  was  scholar  and 
not  artisan.  A  youth  in  which  the  bitter  pinch  of  poverty 
was  unknown,  association  during  his  growing  years  with 
the  best  people  of  his  day  and  nation,  the  unconscious 
effect  on  his  character  of  experiences  in  the  life  of  two 
great  cities,  may  be  traced  in  all  Paul's  waitings.  His 
trade  counted  for  so  little  in  his  life  that  he  barely  refers 
to  it  by  way  of  illustration.  The  most  conspicuous  in- 
stance is,  ''For  if  the  earthly  house  of  our  tabernacle 
(tent)  be  dissolved,  we  have  a  dwelling  from  God,  a  house 
not  made  with  hands,  eternal,  in  the  heavens."  (^)  It  is 
superfluous  to  dwell  further  on  the  contrast  between  him 
and  Jesus  in  their  youth  and  breeding. 

The  ambition  of  Saul  and  his  family  was  evidently  that 
he  might  himself  become  a  famous  rabbi,  and  so  he  would 
give  himself  to  study  with  all  zeal.  We  can  get  a  tolerably 
clear  idea  of  the  instruction  in  the  school  of  Gamaliel. 
The  curriculum,  as  we  should  say,  consisted  almost  wholly 
of  the  Law,  by  which  was  then  meant,  first  of  all,  the  com- 

n~2  Cor.   12:14. 
{')    2  Cor.  .-):1. 


118  FUIs^DAMENTALS  OF   CHRISTIANITY 

mitting  to  memory  of  the  text  of  tlie  Pentateuch,  and  fol- 
lowing that  a  like  memorizing  of  the  comments  handed 
down  from  rabbi  to  rabbi,  that  were  eventually  reduced  to 
writing  in  the  Talmud.  Such  education  does  not  deserve 
the  name  of  culture,  hardly  that  of  intellectual  discipline. 
It  was  almost  purely  an  exercise  of  memory,  with  little 
to  develop  the  judgment  or  reasoning  powers.  Anything 
like  imagination,  coordination,  initiative,  was  repressed 
rather  than  encouraged. 

This  is  most  apparent  when  we  consider  the  rabbinic 
method  of  interpreting  the  Law  that  was  so  zealously 
studied.  A  curious  combination  of  slavish  literalism  and 
free  allegorizing  was  the  Jewish  exegesis,  which  resulted 
on  the  one  hand  in  those  glosses  so  characteristic  of  the 
Pharisees,  and  on  the  other  in  a  kind  of  ^^spiritualizing" 
of  the  most  prosaic  texts  which  made  them  mean  whatever 
the  interpreter  desired  them  to  mean.  Paul  tells  us  that 
he  was  not  only  a  Pharisee  but  a  son  of  Pharisees,  (^)  so 
it  is  nowise  surprising  that  he  acquired  in  the  school  of 
Gamaliel,  and  never  lost,  a  full  faith  in  the  rabbinic  ideals 
and  methods,  and  continued  to  practice  as  a  Christian  what 
he  had  learned  as  a  Jew. 

Not  only  was  the  early  life  of  Saul  such,  but  his  con- 
version made  little  change  in  his  external  conditions.  As 
preacher  of  the  gospel  he  was  distinctly  urban.  So  far 
as  we  know,  he  never  went  into  the  little  towns  and  villages, 
as  Jesus  did  in  Galilee,  but  sought  out  the  large  cities  of 
the  Koman  Empire.  This  was  undoubtedly  good  mis- 
sionary strategy;  he  could  thus  find  a  quicker  hearing  of 
his  message  by  a  larger  number  of  people,  than  by  any 
other  method.  Good  generalship  always  aims  to  capture 
the  enemy's  key  positions,  and  this  Paul  did  when  he 
planted  strong  churches  in  the  principal  Eoman  cities. 
Jesus  was  an  intensive  Teacher;  Paul  was  a  world  evan- 
gelist. 

(^Acts   23:6. 


SAUL   THE    URBxVX    PHARISEE  119 

It  is  no  impeachment  of  the  apostle's  judgment^  or  be- 
littling of  his  mission,  to  recognize  the  fact  that  the  neces- 
sary result  of  his  labors  was  to  keep  him  all  his  life  in  a 
single  groove,  and  in  an  environment  altogether  different 
from  that  of  Jesus.  To  suppose  their  personalities  to  be 
unaffected  by  surroundings  so  different  would  be  to  defy 
all  experience  and  observation.  To  expect  lives  so  diverse 
to  produce  a  common  type  of  teaching  would  be  silly — a 
sort  of  silliness  of  w^hich  only  some  students  of  the  Bible 
appear  to  be  capable,  and  they  merely  because  they  wnll 
not  think  about  the  Bible  and  its  characters  as  they  think 
of  other  books  and  men. 


II 

Because  Saul  was  such  as  we  have  seen  him  to  be,  by 
heredity,  environment  and  training,  the  writings  of  Paul 
are  what  they  are:  exactly  what  we  should  expect  from 
one  sprung  from  commercial  conditions  rather  than  agri- 
cultural, from  the  well-to-do  middle  class  and  not  from 
peasantry  or  proletariat,  bred  in  cities  and  given  chiefly  to 
books  and  study.  If  the  words  of  Jesus  are  redolent  of 
the  country,  those  of  Paul  smell  of  the  city  street  and  the 
student's  lamp.  The  apostle  has  neither  eye  nor  ear  for 
the  beauties  of  nature,  he  can  only  hear  it  groaning  and 
travailing  togetlier  because  of  man's  sin.(')  He  can,  to 
be  sure,  appreciate  the  splendor  of  the  heavens,  (^),  since 
sun  and  star  shine  equally  for  town  and  country.  But 
could  there  be  greater  contrast,  in  their  whole  attitude 
towards  the  world  about  them,  than  is  afforded  by  Paul's, 
''Does  God  then  care  for  oxen?",(^)  and  the  saying  of 
Jesus  about  the  sparrows,  "'Not  one  of  them  falls  to  the 
ground  without  your  Father"  ?(*) 

(^)  Rom.    8:23. 

(2)  1  Cor.  15:40,  41. 

(=*)  1  Cor.  9:9. 

(*)  Matt.    10:29. 


120  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

It  is  seldom  from  the  country  and  from  nature,  there- 
fore, that  Paul  draws  illustrations — that  inexhaustible 
fount  of  Jesus.  But  even  a  city-bred  man  knows  a  few 
primary  facts  about  agriculture,  and  so  Paul  does  several 
times  allude  to  sowing  and  reaping  as  analogies  of  spiritual 
processes.  (^)  He  describes  character  as  '^fruit  of  the 
Spirit."  (")  We  find  also  single  references  to  a  few  other 
like  matters,  as  plowing,  (^)  the  grafting  of  fruit  trees,  (*) 
])lanting  and  watering, (^)  and  the  shepherd's  work. (^) 
This  about  exhausts  the  apostle's  illustrations  from  nature. 
Unless,  indeed,  we  include  in  '^^nature"  the  human  body, 
which  would  not  ordinarily  be  suggested  to  the  mind  when 
we  speak  of  nature. 

The  body,  its  members  and  functions,  suggests  to  Paul 
many  illustrations  of  spiritual  truth.  On  one  occasion  he 
draws  an  elaborate  parallel  between  the  members  that  to- 
gether constitute  the  body  and  the  various  gifts  and  endow- 
ments of  the  individuals  who  compose  the  church.  The 
body  is  not  one  member,  but  many,  he  says,  and  each  is 
indispensable  in  its  place  and  function.  From  this  he 
concludes  that  we  are  all  one  body  in  Christ,  and  so  ^4f 
any  member  suffers  all  the  members  suffer  with  it;  or  one 
member  is  honored,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it."(') 
He  uses  the  same  figure  in  addressing  the  Komans,  but 
with  a  slightly  different  application.  To  the  Corinthians 
he  had  occasion  to  insist  on  the  unity  of  the  body,  because 
the  spirit  of  disunion  was  rife  among  them ;  to  the  Komans 
lie  emphasizes  the  importance  of  each  member  fulfilling  its 
function.  As  the  body  has  members  differing  in  use,  so 
the  church  has  members  of  varying  gifts ;  as  the  efficiency 
of  the  body  depends  on  the  proper  functioning  of  each 

(^)  1    Cor.    3:6-8;    9:7;    2   Cor.    9:0;    Gal.    6:8. 

{-)  Gal.  5:22. 

(»)  1  Cor.  9:10. 

(*)  Rom.  11:17  sq. 

{'')  1  Cor.  3:6-9. 

(")  1  Cor.  9:7. 

(')  1  Cor.  12:26. 


SAUL   THE    UltBAN    PIIAEISEE  121 

member,  each  doing  well  the  thing  for  which  it  is  fitted, 
so  also  in  the  church.  (^) 

Writing  some  years  later  to  the  Ephesians,  Paul  recurs 
to  the  same  figure,  but  this  time  to  lay  emphasis  on  the 
union  of  believers  witli  Christ,  as  the  body  is  united  to  the 
head,  so  that  through  that  union  and  resulting  union  of 
all  parts,  the  body  grows  in  strength  and  usefulness.  (") 
To  the  Corinthians  again,  in  another  connection  he  argues 
that  this  union  with  Christ  as  head  is  the  great  incentive 
to  avoidance  of  all  moral  evil,  especially  of  those  sexual 
lapses  that  were  so  common  in  heathen  society  as  to  affect 
even  the  Christian  brotherhood.  (■^)  That  disease  should 
suggest  analogy  with  sin  would  be  natural,  and  the  apostle 
represents  ungodly  teaching  and  conduct  as  a  '^gangrene," 
that  eats  away  the  flesh.  (*) 

How  completely  Paul's  thought  was  conditioned  by  his 
urban  life,  we  appreciate  more  fully  when  w^e  extend  our 
study  of  his  illustrations.  They  almost  uniformly  indi- 
cate the  city-bred  man.  Architecture  furnished  him  with 
numerous  and  striking  analogies,  as  we  might  expect  from 
one  whose  daily  wont  it  had  been  to  gaze  on  stately  temples 
and  palaces.  He  compares  his  preaching  the  gospel  where 
others  had  preceded  him  to  ^^building  on  another  man's 
foundation."  (^)  The  making  of  character  he  many  times 
likens  to  the  erection  of  a  building — ^^edify"  is  one  of  his 
favorite  words.  As  a  skilled  master-builder,  by  his  preach- 
ing he  laid  the  foundation,  Jesus  Christ,  and  on  that 
foundation  men  built:  some  gold,  silver,  precious  stones; 
others  wood,  hay  stubble ;  but  a  day  would  come  when  fire 
would  test  the  (piality  of  the  superstructure. (^)  To  the 
same  intent,  but  with  a  slight  change  of  the  metaphor,  the 

C)  Rom.    12:4    sq. 

(^)  Eph.    4:12,    If),    10. 

(=>)  1   Cor.   6:15-20. 

{*)  2   Tim.   2:17. 

('^)  Kom.  If): 20. 

(«)  1  Cor.  3:10-12. 


122  FU^^DAME^^TALS  OF  CHEISTIAXITY 

apostle  likens  the  entire  body  of  Christians  to  a  Temple, 
built  on  Christ  as  corner-stone.  (^)  More  briefly,  he  says 
to  the  Corinthians,  "We  are  a  Temple  of  the  living 
God,"(^)  where  the  thought  may  be  that  each  believer  is 
a  Temple  in  whom  God  dwells. 

ISText  to  architecture,  the  amphitheatre  is  most  fruitful 
of  suggestion,  if  indeed  it  should  not  be  put  first.  The 
Greek  games,  as  they  would  be  celebrated  in  a  city  like 
Tarsus,  and  still  more  at  Corinth,  seem  to  have  made  a 
deep  impression  on  Saul's  mind.  One  cannot  resist  the 
inference  that  he  had  often  looked  on  them,  and  was  hu- 
man enough  to  enjoy  those  contests  of  strength  and  skill. 
He  most  frequently  refers  to  the  foot-races,  and  to  the 
rigorous  training (^)  necessary  for  winning  them,  as  well  as 
to  the  leafy  crown  that  was  the  victor's  reward  and  held  in 
such  high  esteem.  ''Every  man  that  contends  in  the  games 
exercises  self-control  in  all  things.  'Now  they  (do  this) 
to  receive  a  perishable  wrath,  but  we  an  imperishable."  (*) 
The  Christian  life  he  compares  to  a  race,  and  declares,  ^'I 
press  on  toward  the  goal  of  the  prize  of  the  high  calling  of 
God  in  Christ  Jesas."(^)  ''You  were  running  well,  who 
fouled  you,"  he  asks  of  the  fickle  Galatians.  (*^)  And  lie 
reminds  his  converts  that  a  principle  of  the  games  is  ap- 
plicable to  their  new  life,  one  who  contends  "is  not  crowned 
unless  he  contends  according  to  the  rules." (^)  Contests 
with  the  cestus  also  afford  the  apostle  a  striking  and  ef- 
fective illustration:  "So  do  I  box,  not  as  one  beating  the 
air,  but  I  hit  my  body  under  the  eye  and  bring  it  under 
control."  (^)  ^ot  asceticism,  but  mastery  of  self  is  the 
apostle's  idea.     Tn  his  first  letter  to  his  younger  disciple, 

n  Eph.  2:20. 

(-)  1  Cor.  3:l(i,  17;  2  Cor.  6:10. 

{■•')  2  Tim.  4:7,  8. 

(')  1  Cor.  9:25. 

(^)  (^al.  2:2;  Phil.  3:14:  2  Thess.  3:1. 

C)  Gal.  5:7. 

(')  2  Tim.  2:5. 

(*)  1   Cor.  0:20,  27. 


SAUL    TJH^    UIMJAN    PHARISEE  123 

Timothy,  he  exhorts  to  contend  well  as  an  athlete. (^)  And 
when  his  own  life  was  fast  drawing  to  a  close,  he  summed 
it  all  up  in  the  words,  "I  have  contended  in  the  noble  con- 
test''— which  is  quite  spoiled  and  meaningless  in  our  ordi- 
nary English  version  of  ''I  have  fought  the  good  fight." (^) 

Of  those  deadlier  contests  in  the  arena,  in  which  Chris- 
tians were  pitted  against  wild  beasts,  Paul  was  doubtless 
never  an  eye-witness,  at  least  never  a  willing  witness.  But 
though  he  knew  of  them  only  by  hearsay,  he  nevertheless 
makes  two  references  to  them.  The  first  is  of  a  general 
character,  when  he  speaks  of  all  the  apostles,  including  of 
course  himself,  as  "men  doomed  to  death  .  .  .  made  a 
spectacle  to  the  world,  both  to  angels  and  men."(^)  In 
the  other  case  the  reference  is  usually  thought  to  be  merely 
figurative,  expressive  of  the  writer's  vivid  sense  of  the 
mortal  combat  he  had  waged  with  heathenism  in  one  of 
its  strongholds:  "^Vhat  would  it  profit  me  if,  humanly 
speaking,  I  fought  with  wdld  beasts  at  Ephesus  ?"('') 

But  the  favorite  source  of  illustration  for  Paul  is  the 
law,  both  Jewish  and  Poman.  In  the  former  he  might  be 
called  an  expert,  and  with  the  latter  he  had  much  more 
than  a  casual  acquaintance.  Many  of  his  allusions  have 
to  do  with  general  principles  of  equity,  that  find  recogni- 
tion and  enforcement  in  all  codes,  ancient  and  modern. 
Among  these  may  be  placed  his  frequent  reference's  to  the 
law  of  inheritance.  In  his  letter  to  the  Galatians  he  com- 
pares the  state  of  the  Jews  under  the  Law  to  a  minor  who 
is  under  guardians  until  he  comes  of  age,  when  he  enters 
into  possession  of  his  inheritance.  (''^)  Again,  he  reminds 
them  that  a  son  of  a  slave  cannot  be  an  heir  when  there 
is  a  son  of  a  freewoman,  and  Christians  are  sons  of  the 
freewoman.     Often  he  informs  his  readers  that  they  are 

(M  1  Tim.  6:12. 

(-)  2  Tim.  4:7. 

(')  1  Cor.  4:9. 

{*)  1  Cor.  15:32. 

n  Gal.  4:1,  2. 


124  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

children  of  God,  and  as  such  are  his  heirs,  co-heirs  with 
Christ, (^)  and  gentiles  arc  co-heirs  with  Jews. (")  The 
kindred  law  of  adoption  suggests  to  the  apostle  another 
illustration  of  our  new  relation  to  God  as  believers  in 
his  Son:  w^e  become  sons  of  God  by  adoption. (^)  Tlie 
law  of  marriage,  as  distinguished  from  the  status,  affords 
several  illustrations.  Both  Jewish  and  Eoman  law  gave 
complete  control  of  the  wdfe  to  the  husband ;  so  Paul 
says,  "a  husband  is  head  of  the  wife  as  also  Christ  is  of 
the  Church."  (■*)  By  most  legal  codes  a  wife  is  freed  from 
the  bond  of  matrimony  by  the  death  of  her  husband  and  is 
permitted  to  marry  again  if  she  chooses.  The  apostle  finds 
in  this  an  analogy  to  our  being  made  free  from  the  Law 
by  the  death  of  Christ.  (') 

Paul  was  student  and  preacher,  but  enough  man  of 
affairs  to  draw  some  of  his  illustrations  from  business 
and  social  transactions.  Death  he  describes  as  ^'the  wages 
of  sin";(^)  he  exhorts  Christians  to  keep  out  of  debt, 
''OvvX^  no  man  anything,  save  to  love  one  another"  ;(^)  and 
to  '^buy  up  the  opportunity", (^)  as  a  shrewd  merchant 
buys  goods  when  they  are  cheap.  Many  times  the  apostle 
compares  himself  and  his  fellow^s  to  stewards — ^'We  are 
stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God" — and  at  the  same  time 
points  out,  as  the  explanation  and  defence  of  his  zeal,  that 
the  first  duty  of  a  steward  is  the  faithful  discharge  of  his 
trust. (^)  The  privileges  of  Roman  citizenship  suggest  a 
passing  allusion  to  the  much  greater  joys  and  privileges  of 
the  believer,  ''Our  citizenship  is  in  the  lleaveus."(^^) 

(')  Rom.  8:17;  Gal.  4:7. 

(  =  )  Eph.  3:6. 

(3)  Rom.  8:3,  23;  9:4. 

(')  Eph.  5:23. 

(^)  Rom.  7:1-3. 

C)  Rom.  0:23. 

(')  Rom.  13:8. 

(«)  Eph.  5:10;  Col.  4:5. 

(»)  1  Cor.  4:1,  2;  Eph.  3:9;  Col.  1:25. 

(^o)  Phil.  3:20. 


SAUL  THE   URBAN   PHARISEE  125 

Though  he  was  by  no  means  deficient  in  manly  spirit, 
perhaps  nobody  would  think  of  calling  Paul  a  warlike 
man.  Yet  circumstances  had  made  him  very  familiar  with 
Roman  soldiers  and  tlieir  discipline  and  arms,  and  these 
often  furnisli  him  an  ap])osirc  illustration.  ^'War  the 
good  warfare"  he  exhorts  Timothy. (')  One  of  the  best 
known  passages  in  his  letters  is  his  elaborate  series  of 
analogies  between  the  '^panoply"  or  complete  armor  of  the 
soldier  and  the  Christian  virtues.  "Stand/'  he  says  to  the 
Ephesians,  "having  belted  your  loins  with  truth,  and  hav- 
ing put  on  the  breastplate  of  righteousness,  and  having 
shod  your  feet  wdth  the  preparation  of  the  gospel  of  peace ; 
in  addition  to  all  having  taken  on  the  shield  of  faith 
.  .  .  and  receive  the  helmet  of  salvation,  and  the  sword 
of  the  Spirit." (")  Less  elaborately,  but  to  tlie  same  gen- 
eral effect,  he  writes  to  the  Thessalonians.(^)  He  speaks 
to  the  Corinthians  of  "armor  of  righteousness  on  the  right 
hand  and  on  the  left,"(*)  i.e.  sw^ord  and  shield;  but  re- 
minds his  readers  that  the  weapons  of  Christian  w^arfare 
are  spiritual,  not  material.  (^)  He  argues  that  as  a  soldier 
does  not  serve  at  his  ow^n  charges,  so  apostles  and  other 
Christian  workers  are  entitled  to  support  ;(*^)  and  again,  as 
a  soldier  does  not  engage  in  business  outside  of  his  w^ar- 
fare,  so  as  to  give  an  undivided  heart  and  service,  so 
must  the  Christian  do.(^)  In  quick  flash  of  metaphor 
he  alludes  to  the  trumpet  that  sounds  tlie  onset, (^)  the  tri- 
umph tliat  follows  victory, (")  and  the  garrisons  in  time  of 
peace.  (•") 

(M  1  Tim.  1:18. 

(2)  Eph.  6:11. 

(«)  1  Thess.  5:8. 

(*)  2  Cor.  6:7. 

(»)  2  Cor.  10:4. 

(«)  1  Cor.  9:7. 

{')  2  Tim.  2:4. 

(8)  1  Cor.  14:8. 

(»)  2  Cor.  2:14-1(5:  Col.  2:15. 

('")  Phil.  4:7, 


126  FUNDAMENTALS   OF   CHRISTIANITY 

Family  life  and  occupations,  which  figure  so  largely  in 
the  words  of  Jesus,  find  but  small  place  in  the  writings  of 
Paul.  He  speaks  of  various  household  utensils  in  a  single 
passage,(')  and  of  musical  instruments  in  another. (") 
The  relationships  of  husband  and  wife,  parents  and  chil- 
dren, freemen  and  slaves,  suggest  spiritual  analogies,  but 
these  are  of  the  most  conventional  type  and  without  much 
straining  cannot  be  regarded  as  distinctive  features  in  the 
Pauline  writings.  The  apostle  writes  almost  as  one  who 
had  never  known  a  home  and  home  life.  His  exile  for  so 
many  years  in  Jerusalem,  apart  from  kindred,  may  in 
some  measure  account  for  this  strange  lack  in  his  letters. 

Ill 

Wit  and  humor  are  as  conspicuous  for  their  absence 
from  the  writings  of  Paul  as  for  their  presence  in  the  say- 
ings of  Jesus.  The  apostle  was  what  is  commonly  called 
''a  serious  minded  man,"  a  phrase  that  usually  stamps 
those  that  use  it  as  unable  to  distinguish  between  the 
seriousness  of  the  genuine  humorist  and  the  frivolity  of 
the  habitual  joker.  The  one  thing  that  might  pass  for  wit 
is  the  occasional  pointed  antithesis  of  clauses  or  sentences. 
A  good  example  is,  ''For  the  good  that  I  wish,  I  do  not; 
but  the  evil  that  I  Avish  not,  that  I  practice." (^)  This  is 
certainly  wit  of  a  very  mild  type.  Occasionally  anti- 
thesis amounts  to  paradox,  ''But  the  foolishness  of  God  is 
wiser  than  men,  and  the  weakness  of  God  in  stronger 
than  men."(*)  And  is  not  this  a  case  of  rather  rare 
hyperbole?  "Howbeit,  in  the  church  I  had  rather  speak 
five  words  with  my  understanding,  that  I  might  in- 
struct others  also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  a  forcigii 
language."  ('"') 

(M  2  Tim.  2:20,  21. 

<  =  )  1  Cor.  14:7. 

(")  Rom.  7:20. 

(*)  1  Cor.  1:25. 

(^)  1  Cor.  14:10. 


SAUL   THE    UEBAX    rilARISEE  127 

On  the  infrequent  occasions  when  Paul  does  permit  him- 
self the  use  of  humor,  it  takes  the  form  of  grave  irony  or 
biting  sarcasm.  Humor  is  for  him  a  weapon  to  be  em- 
ployed in  emergencies,  rather  than  a  habitual  way  of  look- 
ing at  men  and  things.  He  never  plays  with  an  idea  or  a 
person ;  his  earnestness  is  too  deadly  for  that.  Such  earnest- 
ness is  well  called  ^'deadly/'  for  it  is  often  fatal,  or  nearly 
so,  to  him  who  possesses  it — or  is  possessed  by  it.  A  good 
instance  of  w^hat  is  meant  by  his  grave  irony  is  this  from 
his  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians:  ''What  is  there  in 
which  you  were  inferior  to  the  rest  of  the  churches,  except 
that  1  was  myself  not  a  burden  to  you  ?  Forgive  me  this 
wrong !"(^)  And  again,  'Tor  you  bear  with  the  foolish 
gladly,  being  wise."(")  The  most  extended  sample  of 
irony  in  Paul's  letters  is  perhaps  that  allegory  of  the  body 
and  its  members,  already  cited  for  another  purpose.  The 
apostle  is  gently  rebuking  those  Corinthians  who  were 
puffed  up  with  pride,  because  they  believed  themselves 
possessed  of  exalted  spiritual  gifts,  and  so  looked  down  on 
those  less  favored  than  themselves: 

The  body  is  not  one  member  but  many.  I£  the  foot  say, 
'Because  I  am  not  a  hand,  I  am  not  of  the  body,'  it  is  not 
therefore  not  of  the  body.  And  if  the  ear  say,  'Because  I  am 
not  an  eye,  I  am  not  of  the  body/  it  is  not  therefore  not  of 
the  body.  If  the  whole  body  were  an  eye,  where  were  the 
hearing?  If  the  whole  were  hearing,  where  were  the  smell- 
ing? But  as  it  is,  God  has  set  the  members  in  the  body, 
even  as  he  wished.  And  if  they  were  all  one  member,  whero 
were  the  body?  But  now  there  are  many  members,  but  one 
body.  And  the  eye  canuot  say  to  the  hand,  'I  have  no  need 
of  3^ou' ;  nor  again  the  head  to  the  feet,  'I  have  no  need  of 
you.'(»j 

Of  the  sarcasm  that  the  apostle  occasionally  uses,  this 
is  perhaps  as  good  a  specimen  as  any:  "Man,  do  you 
reason  thus:  that  judging  tlinse  who  practice  such  things 

(M  2  Cor.  12:13. 
n  2  Cor.  11:10. 
(^)    1   Cor.   12:12  sq. 


138  FUNDAME^s^TALS  OF  CHEISTIAXITY 

and  doing  the  same,  you  will  escape  God's  judgment  ?"(^) 
Or  this:  ^'Was  Paul  crucified  for  you?  Or  were  you 
baptized  into  the  name  of  Paul?"(")  Less  severe,  but 
still  quite  unmistakable,  is  his  reply  to  the  brother  who 
makes  his  ^'faith"  justification  for  eating  things  offered  to 
idols,  irrespective  of  the  effect  of  his  conduct  on  others: 
^'Have  you  faith  ?  Have  it  to  yourself  before  God. 
Happy  is  he  that  does  not  condemn  himself  in  what  he  ap- 
proves." (^)  Sometimes  the  apostle  begins  ironically,  but 
warms  as  he  proceeds,  and  ends  with  a  strong  sarcastic 
thrust.  Thus  to  the  Corinthians:  ^'We  are  fools  for 
Christ's  sake,  but  you  are  wise  in  Christ;  we  are  weak, 
but  you  are  strong;  you  are  glorious,  but  we  are  without 
honor." 


IV 

As  to  the  literary  form  of  Paul's  writings,  it  is  for  the 
most  part  the  plain  sober  prose  appropriate  to  correspond- 
ence. His  letters,  though  intended  to  be  read  publicly, 
bear  no  marks  of  purpose  or  expectation  on  his  part  that 
they  would  be  preserved  as  contributions  to  a  new  col- 
lection of  sacred  writings.  It  was  a  sound  instinct,  never- 
theless, that  led  to  their  preservation,  since  the  qualities 
of  the  letters  that  made  them  valuable  for  instruction  in 
the  Avriter's  age  have  proved  to  be  of  equal  worth  in  all 
ages.  The  saying  in  the  second  letter  of  Peter,  whether 
that  is  the  work  of  the  apostle  or  another,  is  most  judi- 
cious: that  there  are  some  things  in  the  letters  of  ^^oiir 
beloved  brother  Paul"  that  are  ^'hard  to  understand,"  so 
that  the  ignorant  and  unstable  use  them  to  their  own  dam- 
age. (^)      And,  could  the  writer  have  foreseen  the  course 

(M    Rom.  2:3. 
(*)    1  Cor.  1:1.3. 
(')    Rom.  14:22. 
(*)   2  Pot.  3:15,  IG. 


SAUL   THE    URBAN    PHARISEE  120 

of  Christian  thought,  he  might  have  added  that  the  learned 
and  wise  would  make  even  worse  use  of  them.  It  is  still 
true,  however,  that  to  understand  the  more  important 
parts  of  tliem  the  only  requisites  are  an  honest  intent  and 
a  fair  degree  of  good  sense. 

Every  Hebrew  writer  seems  to  have  had  in  him  the 
makings  of  a  poet;  and  a  few  times,  in  moments  of  spe- 
cial exaltation,  Paul  breaks  into  the  rhythmical  utterance 
of  psalmists  and  prophets.  One  notable  instance  is  his 
panegj^ric  on  love  in  the  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians. 
Inasmuch  as,  in  every  one  of  our  current  versions,  the 
poetic  character  of  this  passage  is  disguised,  in  some  by 
being  split  up  into  unequal  numbered  'S^rses,"  and  in  all 
by  being  printed  as  plain  prose,  it  may  be  pardonable  to 
give  it  a  literary  form  that  indicates  its  real  character: 

Though  I  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and  angels, 

B.ut  have  not  Love, 
I  am  become  a  brazen  trumpet  or  clanging  cymbal. 

And  though  I  have  [the  gift  of]  prophecy, 

And  know  all  mysteries  and  all  knowledge, 
And  though  I  have  all  faith,  so  as  to   remove  mountains, 

But  have  not  Love, 
I  am  nothing. 

And  though  I  spend  all  my  property  to  feed  tlie  poor. 

Yea,  if  I  give  my  body  to  be  burned, 
But  have  not  Love, 
It  profits  me  nothing. 

Love  suffers  long,  is  kind; 

Love  envies  not,  Love  boasts  not  herself,  is  not  arrogant. 
Does  nothing  shameful,  seeks  not  her  own. 
Takes  no  offence,  imputes  no  evil, 
Is  not  joyful  over  wrong, 

But  is  joyful  with  the  truth. 
Overlooks  all,  trusts  all, 
Hopes  all,  endures  all. 
Love  never  fails. 


130  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

But  if  [there  be]  prophecies,  they  will  be  made  vain; 

Or  tongues,  they  will  cease, 

Or  knowledge,  it  will  be  made  vain. 
For  we  know  in  part  and  prophecy  in  part, 

But  when  the  perfect  shall  come,  the  partial  will  be  made 
vain. 

When  I  was  a  child,  I  talked  like  a  child, 

I  understood  like  a  child, 

I  reasoned  like  a  child; 
Xow  that  I  have  become  a  man  I  have  renounced  the  [con- 
duct]   of  a   child. 

For  now  we  behold  through  a  mirror,  in  shadow, 

But  then  face  to  face. 
Now  I  know  in  part. 

But  then  I  shall  know  as  I  have  been  known. 

So  now  there  remain  with  us  Faith,  Hope,  Love — these  three ; 
But  the  greatest  of  these  is  Love. 

There  is  one  other  passage  in  Paul's  writings  com- 
parable with  this  in  length  and  poetic  exaltation,  at  the 
close  of  the  discussion  of  the  resurrection.  Here  the 
apostle's  passion  again  demands  rhythmical  exj)ression: 

All  flesh  is  not  the  same  flesh; 

B.ut  there  is  one  flesh  of  men  and  another  of  beasts, 
One  of  birds  and  another  of  fish. 
There  are  both  heavenly  bodies  and  earthly  bodies, 

But  the  glory  of  the  heavenly  is  one,  and  of  the  earthly 
another. 

There  is  one  glory  of  sun. 

And  another  glory  of  moon. 

And  another  glory  of  stars; 

For  star  diifers  from  star  in  glory. (') 


O  The  poetry  of  tliis  fine  passaj^e  is  completely  spoiled  in  all  F.ng- 
lish  versions  by  insistence  of  translators  on  "supplying"  (which 
in  this  case  means  needlessly  inserting)  definite  articles  and  other 
words  not  in  the  forceful  and  poetic  original,  whereby  they  have 
"iven  us,  not  Paul,  but  Paul-and-water. 


SAUL    THE     L'iJBAX    PHArdSEE  1^ 

And  so  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead: 
It  is  sown  in  corruption, 

It  is  raised  in  incorruption ; 
It  is  sown  in  dishonor, 

It  is  raised  in  glory ; 
It  is  sown  in  weakness, 

It  is  raised  in  power; 
It  is  sown  a  natural  body, 

It  is  raised  a  spiritual  body. 

*  *  :K 

So  also  it  is  written : 

The  first  Adam  became  a  living  soul, 
The  last  Adam  a  life-giving  Spirit. 
But  not  first  is  the  natural,  but  the  spiritual, 

Then  the  natural. 
The  first  man  is  from  the  earth,  earthly, 
The  second  man  is  from  Heaven. 
*         *         ♦ 

But  this  I  say,  brothers: 
Flesh  and  blood  will  not  inherit  God's  Kingdom, 

Nor  will  corruption  inherit  incorruption. 
Lo,  I  tell  you  a  secret ! 

We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  all  will  be  changed, 

In  a  moment,  in  the  wink  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump. 

For  the  trumpet  will  blow. 

And  the  dead  will  be  raised  incorruptible. 

And  we  shall  be  changed. 

For  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption 

And  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality. 
And  when  this  corruptible  shall  put  on  incorruption. 

And  this  mortal  shall  put  on  immortality. 
Then  will  come  to  pass  the  word  that  is  written : 
Death  has  been  swallowed  up  in  victory. 
Where  is  thy  sting,  0  Death? 

Where  is  thy  victory,  0  Death  ? 
The  sting  of  death  is  sin, 

And  the  power  of  sin  is  the  Law. 
But  to  God  be  thanks,  who  gives  iis  tlie  victory 
Through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ! 


132  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


The  ethics  of  Paul  are  such  as  we  should  infer  from 
our  knowledge  of  his  experience.  On  the  surface  they 
do  not  differ  materially  from  those  of  Jesus;  so  far  as 
they  have  to  do  with  individual  character  and  conduct 
they  may  be  pronounced  practically  identical  with  those 
of  Jesus.  But  the  ethics  of  Jesus  are  mainly  social; 
his  point  of  view  is  the  conduct  of  those  who  are  mem- 
bers of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  ethics  of  Paul  are 
individualistic.  There  is  no  social  teaching  in  Paul's 
writings,  because  he  never  got  the  social  point  of  vieAv.(^) 
He  virtually  tells  us  nothing  about  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
because,  although  he  sometimes  uses  the  phrase,  he  almost 
never  uses  it  in  the  sense  of  Jesus.  He  either  leaves  the 
words  quite  undefined,  or  else  uses  in  the  context  words 
that  appear  to  indicate  a  conception  of  the  Kingdom  as 
future  and  heavenly,  not  present  and  earthly.  If  we 
accept  2  Timothy  as  genuine,  we  can  hardly  avoid  the 
conclusion  that  at  the  close  of  his  life  ''Kingdom"  and 
^'heaven"  had  become  s^oionymous:  ''The  Lord  will  de- 
liver me  from  every  evil  work,  and  will  bring  me  safe  to 
his  heavenly  Kingdom.'' (^) 

Jesus  was  therefore  an  original  ethical  teacher,  Paul  a 
derivative.  The  maxims  of  Jesus  have  been  incessantly 
cited  through  the  Christian  ages  as  guides  of  life,  to  be 
approved  or  opposed ;  with  few  exceptions,  Paul's  maxims 
are  seldom  mentioned,  and  those  most  often  cited  are  mere 
echoes  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  the  ethics  of  Paul 
but  the  theology,  that  has  been  recognized  as  distinctive. 
]^o  Christian  can  discuss  a  theme  like  sin,  or  atonement, 

(^)  One  of  tho  best  books  in  Enfjlish  on  the  pviiclical  loac'liin,<i:s  of 
Paul  is  Archibald  Alexander's  "The  Ethics  of  St.  Taul,"  Glasgow, 
1910.  It  is  instructive  to  note  that  while  many  y)a£^es  are  devoted 
to  the  apostle's  ideas  of  individual  virtue,  a  sin<ile  brief  paras^raph 
quite  suffices  for  an  nccoux»*.  nf  his  social  and  economic  ideas  (p. 
321). 

(  =  )    2  Tim.  4:18. 


SAUL   THE    UEBAiq"    PHARISEE  1?jZ 

justification^  sanctification,  without  constant  reference  to 
Paul.  He  may  agree  with  the  apostle  or  he  may  repu- 
diate him;  the  one  impossible  thing  is  to  ignore  him.  But 
Paul  may  be  entirely  ignored  in  a  discussion  of  Christian 
ethics,  for  he  made  no  contribution  to  the  subject. 

E\"en  when  Paul  repeats  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus, 

he  sometimes  narrows  the  scope  of  his  Master's  words. 
Thus,  while  he  apparently  insists  as  strenuously  as  Jesus 
on  the  primacy  of  love,  the  effect  of  love,  in  his  view,  is 
the  transformation  of  the  individual  rather  than  of  the 
world.  Still,  at  his  best,  he  gives  us  applications  of  the 
principles  of  Jesus  worthy  of  the  Great  Teacher  him- 
self. Sucli  instances  are  his  cluster  of  '^fruits  of  the 
Spirit,"(')  and  his  word  to  the  Ephesians,  ''Become  kind 
to  one  another,  tender-hearted,  forgiving  one  another,  as 
also  God  in  Christ  forgave  you."(")  An  entire  para- 
gTaph  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans  is  of  this  character: 

"Let  your  love  be  sincere.  Hate  the  wrong;  cling  to  the 
right.  In  brotherly  love,  be  affectionate  to  one  another; 
never  flagging  in  zeal ;  fervent  in  spirit ;  serving  the  Master ; 
rejoicing  in  your  hope ;  steadfast  in  persecution ;  persevering 
in  prayer;  relieving  the  wants  of  Christ^s  people;  devoted  to 
hospitality.  Bless  your  persecutors — bless  and  never  curse. 
Rejoice  with  those  who  are  rejoicing,  and  weep  with  those 
who  are  weeping.  Let  the  same  spirit  of  sympathy  animate 
you  all,  not  a  spirit  of  pride.  Be  glad  to  associate  with  the 
lowly;  do  not  think  too  highly  of  yourselves.  Xever  return 
injury  for  injury.  Aim  at  doing  what  all  men  will  recognize 
as  honorable.  If  it  is  possible,  as  far  as  it  rests  with  you, 
live  peaceably  with  every  one.  .  .  .  Never  be  conquered 
by  evil,  but  conquer  evil  with  good."(') 

Of  like  character  are  many  single  maxims,  such  as: 
"Love  works  no  ill  to  one's  neighbor;  tlierefore  love  is 

(M   Gal.  5:22,  23. 
C)    Eph.   4:. 32;    cf.   Col.    3:12. 

(»)    Rom,    12:9-21.      From    the    Nineteenth    Century    New    Testa 
ment. 


134  rUNDAISIE^^TALS  OF  CliRISTIAXITY 

the  fulfilment  of  the  Law."(^)  '"I^ow  we,  the  strong,  ought 
to  bear  the  infirmities  of  the  weak."(^) 

What  Ave  are  entitled,  therefore,  to  say  of  the  ethics  of 
Paul  is  not  that,  on  the  whole,  they  are  so  different  from 
those  of  Jesus  in  quality,  as  that  they  are  other  in  the 
j)lace  they  take  in  his  thinking.  That  place  is  distinctly 
second.  What  our  fathers  called  "the  plan  of  salvation" 
was  always  first  in  his  mind.  And  precisely  because  ethics 
stood  in  second  place  in  Paul's  thinking,  they  have  always 
been  second  in  his  influence  upon  succeeding  generations. 
Paul's  is  the  greatest  name  in  the  history  of  Christianity, 
next  to  that  of  Jesus,  because  of  his  theology  and  without 
regard  to  his  ethics. 

For,  as  has  already  been  implied,  his  ethics  are  not 
uniformly  good,  l^obody,  for  example,  can  reconcile  with 
his  own  favorite  principle  of  love,  still  less  with  the  spirit 
of  Jesus,  that  injunction  of  his  to  the  Corinthians  re- 
garding the  sinful  brother.  After  admitting  that  his 
advice  or  command  ^'to  have  no  social  relations"  with 
fornicators  and  idolaters  could  not  be  too  literally  fol- 
lowed, "for  in  that  case  you  must  needs  go  out  of  the 
w^orld,"  he  repeats  the  command,  in  the  case  of  a 
"brother,"  a  fellow-Christian,  who  is  guilty  of  any  great 
sin,  "with  such  a  one,  no,  not  to  eat."(^)  This  does  not 
seem  to  mean,  as  some  have  interpreted  it,  that  he  is  to 
be  excluded  from  formal  fellowship — not  to  eat  with  him 
ceremonially  in  the  Lord's  Supper — but  that  he  is  to  b^^ 
cast  out  of  the  community  and  utterly  boycotted.  The 
Christian  conscience  of  our  age  can  by  no  means  approve 
that  as  good  ethics,  ^or  would  enlightened  Christians 
of  the  twentieth  century  hesitate  a  single  moment  to 
condemn  as  essentially  unchristian  such  advice,  if  they 
found  it  outside  of  what  they  call  Holy  Writ.     Why  not 

{')   Rom.  13:10. 

(-)    Rom.    15:1.  / 

('')    1  Cor.  5:11. 


S^iUL   TKE    URBAN    PITARTSEE  135 

have  the  courage,  theu,  to  say  that  such  words  may  be 
writ,  but  are  not  holy,  wherever  they  occur  ? 

^or  can  Paul's  instructions  about  the  veiling  of  women 
and  the  silence  of  women  in  the  churches  be  longer 
regarded  as  good  ethics,  at  least  for  our  day.  The  good 
sense  of  modern  Christians  has  practically  blotted  those 
words  out  of  our  Bibles.  Even  men  whose  boast  is  that 
they  ''believe  every  word  of  the  Bible,  from  the  first 
verse  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Eevelation"  openly  ap- 
prove of  women  addressing  large  assemblies  on  religious 
topics.  They  act  precisely  as  if  Paul  had  never  written 
those  words — which  is,  of  course,  the  only  sensible  thing 
to  do,  though  it  accords  ill  with  their  professions  of  belief 
in  Paul's  inspiration  and  infallibility.  For  the  reasoning 
by  which  he  supports  his  commands,  if  it  gave  them  any 
authority  when  he  issued  them,  gives  them  permanent 
validity  to  those  who  accept  the  historicity  of  Genesis.  For 
Paul  distinctly  bases  his  words  on  the  principle  that  woman 
is  man's  natural  inferior  and  subordinate,  (' )  created  after 
him  and  for  him,  and  that  her  spiritual  inferiority  is 
manifest  in  the  fact  that  she  was  first  in  the  great  trans- 
gression of  Eden.(")  ]\lilton  caught  Paul's  spirit  exactly 
when  he  wrote  of  Adam  and  Eve, 

He  for  God  only,  she  for  God  in  him. 
We  repudiate  both  Milton  and  Paul.  We  no  longer  be- 
lieve that  woman  is  in  any  sense  man's  inferior,  or 
that  man  is  in  any  sense  woman's  "head."  We  do  not 
believe  that  the  family  is  a  little  despotism,  of  which 
man  is  ruler  by  divine  right,  and  wife  and  children  are 
his  obedient  subjects.  The  divine  right  of  husbands  has 
gone  into  the  limbo  whither  the  divine  right  of  priests 
and  the  divine  right  of  kings  preceded  it.  There  are  no 
"divine  rights"  among  men.  Christianity  is  the  reli- 
gion of  democracy,  of  equal  rights  for  all. 

oTl    Cor.   11:1-10;    14:34-30;    Tit.    2:3.  ' 

C)    1   Tim.  2:11-15. 


136  FUNDAMENTALS  OF   CHRISTIANITY 

And  it  is  to  be  further  noted  that  even  when  Paul's 
ethics  are  apparently  identical  with  those  of  Jesus,  closer 
scrutiny  discloses  a  fundamental  difference.  He  exhorts 
the  Eomans  not  to  seek  revenge  against  those  who  have 
injured  them;  but  the  ground  on  which  he  bases  his 
exhortation  is  that  God  will  avenge  them ;  since  he  quotes 
(not  quite  accurately)  as  his  authority  from  the  ^'Song 
of  Moses"  in  Deuteronomy, 

Vengeance  is  mine,  and  recompense. (^) 

The  ground  on  which  Jesus  urges  men  to  forego  ven- 
geance is  precisely  the  reverse  of  this — not  because  God 
will  avenge,  but  because  God  forgives  and  we  must  for- 
give to  be  like  God. 

Of  Paul's  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament  in  general 
it  must  be  said  that  its  authority,  and  often  its  correct- 
ness, is  quite  repudiated  by  the  scholarship  of  our  day. 
It  is  based  on  the  Septuagint,  not  on  the  original  Hebrew, 
and  is  such  as  he  learned  from  Hebrew  rabbis,  whose  in- 
terpretations were  often  logically  as  well  as  grammatically 
unsound,  and  absurdly  allegorical.  A  crucial  case  is  the 
apostle's  argument  to  the  Galatians  that  the  promise  to 
Abraham,  ^'to  him  and  to  his  seed,"  meant  Christ,  be- 
cause God  said  "seed"  and  not  "seeds." (-)  But  the  word 
in  the  Hebrew,  though  singular  in  form  is  a  collective 
noun,  like  our  word  "sheep,"  and  may  mean  one  or  a 
multitude.  The  context  shows  clearly  that  the  promise 
related  to  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  "and  I  will 
make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth." ("')  Paul's 
exegesis  is  not  even  doubtful;  it  is  quite  impossible.  On 
the  other  hand,  his  allegorizing  of  the  story  of  Hagar  and 
the  two  children  of  Abraham (*)  is  not  impossible — it  is 
merely  absurd. 

(M  Deut.  32:35. 

(^)  Gal.  3:16. 

(=•)  Gen.  13:16. 

(*)  Gal.  4:2231. 


CHAPTEK  VII 
THE  MAKING  OF  PAUL  THE  APOSTLE 


Paul  and  Jesus  were  as  unlike  in  spirit  as  in  heredity 
and  environment.  No  two  human  personalities  could  well 
be  more  dissimilar;  hardly  a  single  quality,  bodily  or 
mental,  is  common  to  the  two. 

The  notable  thing  in  the  personality  of  Jesus  is  the 
exquisite  balance  of  his  faculties  and  qualities.  His  spirit 
was  at  once  strong  and  restful;  he  was  masculine  with- 
out brutality,  gentle  without  weakness.  Normally  equable 
and  tranquil,  without  a  trace  of  irritability  or  impatience, 
he  was  yet  capable  of  fiery  indig-nation.  Yet  at  the  summii 
of  his  passion  he  never  loses  his  poise,  his  sense  of  pro- 
portion. His  speech  is  calm  and  measured  for  the  most 
part,  yet  when  occasion  demands  it  can  be  vitriolic  and 
burn  into  the  conscience  as  no  other  human  speech  can. 
He  was  an  idealist,  but  not  a  dreamer;  an  enthusiast  but 
no  fanatic. 

The  bodily  powers  of  Jesus  were  as  remarkable  as  the 
spiritual.  His  vitality  is  wonderful;  he  surpassed  in 
endurance  his  disciples,  men  inured  to  labor,  of  excep- 
tional toughness  of  physique,  and  though  often  wearied  he 
was  never  ill.  This  vitality,  no  less  than  his  faith  in  God, 
kept  him  from  discouragement.  His  clarity  of  vision  is 
surpassed  only  by  his  steadfastness  of  hope.  He  began  each 
day  with  fresh  and  exultant  spirit.  He  was  the  great 
Optimist,  an  optimist  without  an  illusion,  who  desired 
all  men  to  share  his  present  joy  and  coming  triumph.     He 

137 


138  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

was  the  one  man  who  wanted  nothing  for  himself,  every- 
thing for  others.  In  every  respect  he  seems  the  normal 
man,  a  human  being  raised  to  the  nth  power. 

In  contrast  we  need  not  take  too  literally  Paul's  iron- 
ical self-depreciation,  ^^his  bodily  presence  is  weak  and 
his  speech  despicable"  ;(^)  but  the  fact  that  the  people 
of  Lystra,  supposing  them  to  be  gods,  called  Barnabas 
Jupiter  and  Paul  Mercury, (^)  is  sufficient  warrant  for  the 
conclusion  that  Paul  w^as  by  no  means  of  imposing  phy- 
sique. And  while  few  have  surpassed  him  in  keenness 
of  intellect,  he  lacked  the  temperamental  balance  of  Jesus. 
Where  the  one  was  conspicuous  for  poise  and  power,  a 
placid  and  unruffled  spirit,  the  other  stands  forth  a  fiery, 
tempestuous,  impulsive,  vehement,  volcanic  nature. 

Jesus  was  a  Seer  of  God,  not  a  philosophizer  about  God. 
From  an  early  age  he  became  conscious  of  a  peculiar  rela- 
tion to  his  Father,  and  his  spiritual  experiences  were  an 
uninterrupted  process  of  development,  conditioned  by  this 
consciousness.  There  was  no  moral  crisis,  no  '^conver- 
sion" in  his  life.  He  studied  the  Scriptures,  to  be  sure, 
but  as  a  revelation  of  his  Father's  mind  and  heart,  not  as 
a  guide  to  salvation.  He  did  not  need  the  Law  whose  food 
it  was  to  do  his  Father's  will. 

Paul  had  no  such  relation  to  God,  whom  he  feared 
more  than  he  loved,  because  he  believed  (and  never  ceased 
to  believe)  that  God's  wrath  is  kindled  against  the  evil- 
doer, and  he  knew  himself  to  be  an  evil-doer.  To  him, 
therefore,  the  Law  was  an  inflexible  code,  an  infallible 
rule  of  conduct,  a  means  of  salvation  if  its  requirements 
could  be  met.  x\nd  so  he  became  ''of  the  strictest  sect  of 
the  Pharisees,"  differing  from  those  against  wdiom  Jesus 
hurled  his  fiercest  invectives  only  in  possessing  greater 
sincerity  than  they.  But  he  was  sincerely  wrong,  as  ho 
came  at  last  to  see,  and  perhaps  dimly  suspected  all  along. 

{')   2  Cor.  10:10. 
(==)   Acts   14:12, 


THE    MAKING    OF   PAUL   THE   ArOSTLE  139 

It.  was  entirely  in  luirniony  with  such  a  spiritual  expe- 
rience and  such  a  theory  of  life  that  Saul  became  a  fierce 
persecutor  of  the  Christians.  The  more  doubt  he  had 
concerning  the  foundations  of  his  legalism,  the  more 
urgently  he  may  have  sought  the  punishment  of  those  who 
offered  a  way  of  salvation  apart  from  the  Law.  He 
was  probably  not  the  first,  and  certainly  not  the  last,  to 
seek  an  anodyne  for  intellectual  difficulties  in  some  form 
of  activity.  There  are  to-day  Christians  not  a  few  who 
will  tell  you  that  the  one  best  cure  for  all  doubts  is  to 
engage  strenuously  in  '^Christian  work."  That  may  stifle 
doubt,  it  will  never  solve  it,  as  Saul  found. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  comprehend  the  hatred  of  Saul 
and  his  Pharisaic  fellows  for  Jesus  and  his  teachings. 
To  the  good,  pious  Jews  of  his  day,  Jesus  gave  apparently 
quite  sufficient  reason  for  them  to  suspect  him  of  hos- 
tility to  their  religion.  It  is  true  that  he  sometimes  said 
that  he  had  come  not  to  destroy  the  Law,  but  to  fulfil 
it,  that  is,  both  to  render  full  obedience  to  it  and  to  ex- 
pound it  in  fulness  of  meaning.  Yet  how  could  his  con- 
temporaries reconcile  this  declaration  with  his  conduct 
at  other  times  ?  Did  he  not  violate  their  Sabbath  rules  and 
justify  his  conduct  ?  Did  he  not  criticise  their  feasts  and 
sacrifices  and  set  aside  their  taboos  ?  Did  he  not  show  dis- 
regard for  practical  piety  by  eating  with  unwashed  hands, 
and  was  he  not  the  unashamed  associate  of  those  ac- 
counted irreligious  and  even  immoral  ?  If  his  example 
should  be  followed,  if  his  teaching  and  conduct  should  be 
accepted  as  the  norm,  what  would  become  of  Judaism  and 
its  traditions  ? 

Jesus  had  outraged  the  orthodoxy,  he  had  opposed  and 
denounced  the  plutocracy,  of  his  time,  lie  was  under- 
mining both,  threatening  both  with  destruction.  Under 
guise  of  completing  the  old,  he  was  in  reality  establish- 
ing a  new  religion  and  a  new  social  order.  Pharisee 
and  Sadducee  saw  this  with  equal  clearness,   and  for  a 


140  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

time  forgot  their  ancient  enmity  in  their  common  interest 
to  crush  this  innovator.  Instead  of  wondering,  as  we 
sometimes  do,  that  so  much  opposition  was  quickly  de- 
veloped against  the  teaching  and  person  of  Jesus,  we 
should  rather  wonder  that  he  was  permitted  to  continue 
his  work  so  long. 

And  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  after  their  Master's  death, 
had  been  even  more  revolutionary  in  conduct  and  teach- 
ing. They  taught  salvation  through  this  crucified  Jesus, 
and  not  through  the  Law.  The  course  of  Paul  the  apostle 
was  the  justification  of  Saul  the  Pharisee — but  for  one 
thing:  Saul  was  wrong  in  denyiug  to  Jesus  the  character 
of  the  Anointed  of  God,  while  Paul  accepted  Jesus  as 
such. 

Paul's  conversion  opened  to  him  a  new  world  of  love 
and  victorious  energy.  Up  to  the  very  moment  of  his 
conversion  he  had  believed  that  Jesus  had  been  justly 
crucified  as  an  impostor.  The  crucifixion  proved  to  any 
normal  Jew  that  Jesus  was  not  the  Messiah — could  not  be, 
for  God's  Anointed  was  to  be  a  conquering  King.  "No 
Messiah  could  be  a  suffering  malefactor,  because  God 
would  never  permit  his  Anointed,  his  Vicegerent,  to  un- 
dergo a  death  of  ignominy.  But  when  Jesus  appeared  to 
Saul  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  in  an  instant  it  becauir 
clear  to  the  persecuting  Pharisee  that  he  had  been  abso- 
lutely wrong.  Jesus,  crucified  as  a  malefactor,  was  alive ; 
he  was  in  glory  with  God;  and  this  Jesus  had  spoken  to 
him.  His  whole  life  lay  in  ruins  at  his  feet.  He  had 
been  fighting  against  God,  even  while  he  supposed  him- 
self to  be  an  exceptionally  faithful  and  zealous  servant 
of  God!  There  was  not  so  much  a  change  of  character 
and  purpose  wrought  in  his  soul  during  that  fateful  hour, 
as  a  tremendous  revulsion  of  mind  and  heart  against  all 
that  lie  had  taught  and  done.  As  soon  as  he  could  orient 
liimself,  he  amazed  his  fellow  Jews  by  proclaimiug  the 
very  views  he  had  hitherto  tried  to  suppress.     T^^aturally, 


THE   MAKING   OF   PAUL   THE   APOSTLE  141 

they  could  not  understand  such  tergiversation;  to  them 
it  seemed  treason,  betrayal  of  the  religion  of  their  fathers. 

Paul  now  sought  seclusion  and  the  opportunity  for 
meditation  and  study  of  the  Scriptures  of  his  people  from 
his  new  point  of  view.  This  was  necessary,  in  order  to 
adjust  himself  to  his  new  life  and  somehow  to  reconcile 
his  new  experience  with  his  old  knowledge,  so  that  hr 
might  have  a  definite  message  to  proclaim.  Keither  at 
this  time  nor  at  any  other  did  he  seek  information  or  ad- 
vice from  other  Christians,  and  he  seems  to  have  taken 
particular  pains  to  keep  himself  aloof  from  the  Twelve. 
He  imderstood  himself  to  have  received  a  special  and  in- 
dependent mission  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  and  he  was 
always  very  sensitive  about  his  apostolic  authority.  He 
was  not  only  outside  of  the  original  Twelve,  but  he  was 
not  even  of  the  Jerusalem  circle,  like  Barnabas  and  Mark ; 
and  for  this  reason  his  apostleship  was  often  challenged 
and  he  felt  obliged  to  assert  it  with  the  greater  emphasis. 
"Am  I  not  an  apostle?"  he  asks  the  Corinthians;  "have 
I  not  seen  Jesus  our  Lord?"(^)  ^^^  ^^  reminds  the 
Galatians  that  his  apostleship  had  been  recognized  by 
the  Twelve — "James  and  Cephas  and  John,  they  who 
were  reputed  to  be  pillars,  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas  th(; 
right  hands  of  fellowship." (") 

Something  Paul  learned  later  about  the  life  and  work  of 
Jesus,  but  so  far  as  the  record  shows  he  made  no  special 
attempt  to  do  this  and  was  quite  satisfied  with  such 
knowledge  as  incidentally  fell  in  his  way.  He  was  rather 
inclined  to  depreciate  knowledge  of  Jesus  "^'after  the 
flesh."  (^)  Of  all  the  ^N'ew  Testament  writers,  he  is  least 
affected  by  the  personality  of  Jesus,  for  the  obvious  rea- 
son that  he  never  came  into  contact  with  his  Master. 
It  is  a  heavenly  Christ,  not  the  historic  Jesus,  that  pro- 

(M    1  Cor.  9:1. 

(■-)   Gal.  2:9. 

(^)    See,  for  example.  2  Cor.  5;  16. 


142  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

foundly  influences  Panl;  and  if  the  only  Christian  liter- 
ature of  the  first  century  now  remaining  to  us  were  his 
letters,  we  should  know  only  a  few  cardinal  facts  about 
the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus — indeed,  practically  noth- 
ing about  the  teaching.  These  letters  direct  almost  ex- 
clusive attention  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
It  is  the  ivorh  of  Jesus,  not  his  words,  that  is  significant 
to  Paul. 

The  reason  is  obvious,  though  it  may  have  been  partly 
unconscious:  Paul  knew  as  much  as  any  other  about 
these  themes  and  could  reason  about  them  better  than 
most;  while,  if  he  should  dwell  upon  the  life  and  teach- 
ings of  Jesus,  he  w^ould  necessarily  expose  himself  to 
unfavorable  comparison  with  those  who  had  been  daily 
companions  of  their  Master,  and  knew  his  words  at  first 
hand.  Possibly  the  exact  truth  is,  that  Paul  was  not  so 
much  ignorant  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  determined 
to  ignore  it.  The  very  nature  of  his  apostolate  ("as  one 
born  out  of  due  time")  virtually  compelled  this  course. 
If  he  were  to  vindicate  his  apostolate  as  specially  be- 
stowed, he  must  have  a  special  message  and  be  something 
other  than  a  mere  echo  of  the  Twelve.  And  so,  in  all 
his  writings,  we  seldom  or  never  find  him  confirming  or 
illustrating  his  own  teaching  by  quoting  the  words  of 
Jesus.    His  message  is  indeed  "my  gospel."  (^) 

II 

It  should  not  surj^rise  us,  therefore,  to  discover  that 
Paul  claims  for  his  teaching  a  special  quality.  He  says 
that  he  received  it  '*by  revelation,"  that  he  "received 
from  the  Lord,"  and  the  like.  These  assertions  have  been 
interpreted  to  mean  that,  through  Paul,  Jesus  has  given 
us  teaching  that  supplements  and  even  overrides  his  words 
in  the  Gospels;  so  that  the  letters  of  Paul  are  primary 

(M  So  in  Horn.  2:1G;  16:25;  2  Tim.  2:8;  besides  three  times 
"our"  gospel;   "the  gospel  preached  by  me"   (Gal.  1:11),  etc. 


THE   MAlvlNG   OF   PAUL   THE   APOSTLE  14o 

authority  for  Christians.  The  practical  result  of  this 
interpretation,  if  not  the  intended,  is  to  make  the  words 
of  Jesus  secondary  in  importance.  In  this  view  of  the 
case,  Paul  is  not  a  religious  teacher  to  be  studied  as  a 
separate  personality,  but  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  organ  of 
the  glorified  Christ,  through  whom  Jesus  has  given  u^ 
his  final  message  to  his  Church  and  the  world.  We  have, 
in  reality,  two  gospels  of  Jesus:  one  which  he  gave  the 
world  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  the  other  spoken  through 
the  lips  of  Paul,  after  he  ascended  into  glory. 

This  astounding  theory  of  the  relation  of  Paul  to 
Jesus  is  furthermore  declared  to  be  the  article  of  a  stand- 
ing or  falling  Church. (')  Pailure  to  accept  it  is  de- 
nounced as  ^'infidelity''  and  "treason."  Concerning 
charges  like  these,  one  need  only  say  that  a  theological 
cause  must  be  in  a  desperate  way,  when  its  advocate's 
resort  to  the  tactics  of  children,  who,  unable  to  argue 
and  afraid  to  fight,  sometimes  fancy  that  they  are  in- 
juring their  adversaries  by  "calling  names."  Let  us 
who  have  become  men  put  away  these  acts  of  the  child, 
as  Paul  himself  teaches  us.  Personal  abuse  is  the  last 
shift  of  the  w^eak. 

To  the  writings  of  the  apostle,  then,  be  our  chief  appeal. 
To  any  candid  reader  of  these  letters,  will  they  present 
themselves  as  a  second  edition,  revised  and  improved, 
of  the  gospel  of  Jesus,  or  as  a  new  and  original  work? 
The  first  thing  that  will  strike  such  a  reader,  and  the 
last  thing  that  will  linger  in  his  memory,  is  the  vast 
difference  in  tone  and  content  between  a  Gospel  and  a 
Pauline  letter.  Paul  is  silent,  or  virtually  so,  about  the 
things  on  which  Jesus  lays  most  stress,  while  on  the  other 
hand,  Jesus  does  not  liint  at,  or  at  most  only  hints  at, 
the  things  that  are  the  burden  of  Paul's  teaching.     They 

(^)  William  C.  Wilkinson.  "Paul  and  the  Revolt  Against  Him," 
rhiladelphia,  1914,  pp.  4o,  48,  G9,  241.  Tlie  lamented  death  of  the 
author,  since  the  above  words  were  written,  does  not  make  the  criti- 
cism of  his  views  less  proper  or  less  necessary;  his  book  still  lives. 


144  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

move  in  different  planes  of  thought.  They  cannot  be 
said  to  contradict  each  other,  they  so  seldom  meet. 

It  may  also  be  pointed  out  that  to  assert  Paul's  im- 
portance, as  the  unique  organ  of  a  new  revelation  by  Jesus, 
is  to  make  for  him  a  claim  not  only  in  itself  incredible,  but 
never  made  by  himself.  He  makes  a  different  claim, 
not  that  Jesus  always  spoke  through  him,  but  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  sometimes  spoke  through  him.  Sometimes, 
not  always.  The  Holy  Spirit,  not  Jesus.  This  is  not 
mere  verbal  quibble,  sheer  pettifogging  of  the  question, 
as  every  ^^orthodox"  reader  is  bound  to  admit,  unless  he 
is  prepared  to  evacuate  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  of  all 
real  meaning,  in  which  c^ase  he  ceases  to  be  ' 'orthodox." 
We  cannot  ignore  this  real,  this  vital  distinction  of  the 
Persons  in  the  Godhead,  in  discussing  the  teaching  of 
Paul.  If  it  is  right  to  say  that  Jesus  spoke  through  Paul, 
it  is  right  to  say  that  the  Father  died  on  the  cross. 
Orthodoxy  long  ago  decided  that  such  confusions  of  the 
persons  are  inadmissible.  According  to  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  'New  Testament,  the  glorified  Jesus  does  not  speak, 
never  did  speak,  through  anybody.  He  spoke  to  Paul  on 
the  way  to  Damascus,  but  never  through  him. 

A  careful  scrutiny  of  Paul's  statements  about  this 
^'revelation"  justifies  the  conclusion  that  he  makes  no 
claim  to  supernatural  or  abnormal  impartation  of  knowl- 
edge to  him.  When  he  speaks  of  "revelation"  he  seems 
oftenest  to  refer  to  the  "appearance"  or  "manifestation" 
of  Jesus  to  him  near  Damascus.  In  other  cases,  the  term 
seems  to  describe  that  solid  conviction  to  which  he  came, 
by  aid  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  through  meditation  and 
study  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  salvation  was  not  to  be 
found  through  works  of  Law,  but  by  trust  in  Jesus  the 
Christ.  That  was  his  "gospel"  of  which  he  speaks  so 
frequently,  the  fundamental  thesis  of  his  two  most  the- 
ological letters,  those  addressed  to  the  Galatians  and 
Romans.     "Man  is  not  justified  by  works  of  Law,  but  only 


THE   MAKING    OF   PAUL   THE   APOSTLE  145 

through  trust  in  Jesus  Christ/' (^)  is  the  keynote  of  the 
Galatian  letter;  and  of  the  Roman,  'Tor  we  reckon  that 
a  man  is  justified  by  trust,  apart  from  works  of  Law."(^) 
That  is  what  Paul  calls  ''my  gospel,"  and  it  is  of  this  that 
he  insists,  "For  I  also  did  not  receive  it  from  man,  nor 
was  I  taught  it,  but  I  received  it  through  an  appearance 
(revelation)  of  Jesus  Christ." (^) 

It  is  his  originality,  not  any  supernatural  revelation, 
that  Paul  stresses.  "But  when  God,  who  set  me  apart 
from  birth,  was  pleased  to  make  his  Son  manifest  in  me, 
that  I  should  make  known  his  gospel  among  the 
nations,  straightway  I  did  not  confer  with  flesh  and 
blood  .  .  .  but  I  went  away  into  Arabia." (*)  The  ap- 
pearance of  Jesus  to  him  w^as  his  "revelation,"  and  Paul 
was  convinced  that  then  and  there  he  received  his  commis- 
sion of  apostleship,  and  the  conviction  that  Jesus  w^as  the 
Messiah  and  Saviour,  especially  his  own  personal  Saviour. 
A  new  man  was  born  in  that  hour,  and  out  of  that  expe- 
rience and  much  subsequent  study  and  thought  developed 
those  ideas  of  "faith"  and  "Law,"  of  "works"  and  "right- 
eousness," that  became  fundamental  in  his  thinking  and 
teaching. 

To  stretch  Paul's  "gospel"  so  as  to  make  it  cover  all 
of  his  later  writings,  and  to  assert  in  his  name  that  what- 
ever he  taught  is  to  be  regarded  as  part  of  his  "revelation," 
and  therefore  to  be  clothed  with  a  character  of  super- 
natural authority;  in  a  word,  to  strive  to  invest  all  the 
teachings  of  Paul  with  the  authority  of  Jesus  himself — 
this  is  an  interpretation  of  Paul's  words  that  Christian 
scholarship  has  never  authorized,  nor  Christian  good  sense 
approved.  Nothing  that  the  apostle  says  about  his  expe- 
riences requires  us  to  believe  that  they  are  different  in 
kind   from   those   of  his  fellow   Christians,   though   they 

TTGal.    2:1G. 

r)    Rom.   3:28. 

{=•)    Gal.    1:12. 

(*)   Gal.    1:15. 


146  FUNDAxMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

may  well  have  differed  in  degree.  They  were,  in  quality, 
for  all  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  just  such  experiences 
as  all  disciples  in  all  ages  have  had. 

There  are  just  two  exceptions  to  this  statement:  the 
appearance  of  Jesus  was  admittedly  unique;  and  Paul 
speaks  once  of  special  revelations  in  which  he  heard  ''un- 
speakable words,  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  man  to 
utter." (^)  Since  he  never  uttered  them  it  is  the  same  to 
us  as  if  they  never  occurred.  Normally  he  seems  to  have 
been  led  into  the  truth  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  according  to 
the  promise  of  Jesus.  (^)  To  assume  the  supernatural  to 
explain  the  natural  is  gratuitous  and  irrational. 

This  is  particularly  true  of  tlie  ''revelation"  regard- 
ing the  Lord's  supper. f'^)  Paul  says:  "For  I  received 
from  the  Lord,  what  I  also  delivered  to  you,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus,  in  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  a 
loaf;  and  having  given  thanks  he  broke  it  and  said,  'This 
is  my  body,  which  is  for  you ;  this  do  in  remembrance  of 
me.'  In  like  manner  also  the  cup,  after  they  had  supped, 
saying,  'This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood;  this 
do,  as  oft  as  you  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.'  "  The 
great  majority  of  commentators  on  this  passage  insist  on 
interpreting  the  words  "I  received  from  the  Lord"  as 
meaning  "I  received  this  by  direct  revelation." 

Did  Jesus  appear  to  Paul  again  and  relate  this  story  to 
him,  giving  him  the  exact  words  in  which  the  holy  supper 
was  instituted  ?  Is  it  credible  that  Paul  would  have  passed 
over  in  silence  an  event  of  so  enormous  significance  as 
such  a  second  appearance  of  Jesus  to  him  ?  And  if  that  is 
the  meaning  of  Paul's  words,  it  follows  that  the  narratives 
in  the  Gospels  are  quite  incorrect,  and  that  we  have  here 
the  only  trustworthy  account  of  the  Last  Supper — for,  of 
course,  if  this  is  direct  rovehitioii  from  ^lesns,  it  must  bo 

(^"2  Cor.  12:1-4. 

(2)   John  1(5:13. 

{')    1  Cot.  11:2^-25. 


THE    ]\rAKi:sG    OF    PAUL    THE    APOSTLE  147 

accurate  to  the  last  detail.  But  is  not  the  other  alternative 
far  preferable,  is  it  not  virtually  the  only  sane  opinion, 
that  Paul  received  this  account  from  his  Lord  mediately, 
through  some  disciple  who  was  present,  or  through  cur- 
rent tradition '? 

Such,  then,  must  be  regarded  as  the  true  content  of  the 
apostle's  idea  of  ''revelation." 

Ill 

It  would  be  most  unfair  to  Paul  to  hold  him  in  any  way 
responsible  for  the  exaggerated  claims  in  his  behalf  of 
those  who  have  admired  him  not  wisely  but  too  Avell.  To 
do  him  mere  justice,  he  never  thought  of  making  such 
claims.  If  he  had  ever  put  forward  pretensions  so  enor- 
mous, no  one  of  his  generation  would  have  listened  to  him. 
And  Jesus  excluded  the  very  possibility  of  such  claims 
by  anybody  coming  after  him  and  professing  to  speak  in 
liis  name,  when  he  enjoined  his  followers  not  to  be  called 
Eabbi  (which  of  course  included  a  prohibition  to  call 
any  other  man  Rabbi)  but  to  regard  him  as  their  sole 
Teaclier  and  tliemselves  equally  his  disciples.  He  thus 
signified  in  words  unmistakable  that  his  teaching  was  final 
for  them  and  for  all  who  should  trust  in  him.  Any 
who  should  come  later,  claiming  special  authority  from 
liim  as  religious  teachers,  were  to  be  reckoned  impostors. 

When  Jesus  knew  himself  about  to  leave  his  followers, 
did  he  modify  t^is  injunction  in  any  way  ?  Did  he,  even 
by  subtlest  hint,  give  warning  of  his  intention  to  appoint 
some  one  outside  of  the  Twelve  to  a  higher  authority  than 
theirs,  one  w^ho  w^as  to  be  his  chief  accredited  organ, 
tlirough  whom  he  was  to  continue  to  be  the  Teacher  of 
his  Church?  He  did  not.  On  the  contrary,  he  assured 
tlie  Twelve  that  he  would  send  in  his  stead  the  Paraclete, 
tlio  Sjurit  of  Truth,  to  teach  them  in  all  things  and  guide 
them  into  all  the  truth.  And  this  was  his  last  word  to 
them,  as  it  is  his  last  word  to  us. 


148  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

We  have  the  explicit  warrant,  therefore,  of  our  Master 
himself  for  asserting  that  anybody  who  puts  himself  for- 
ward, or  is  put  forward  by  others,  in  the  character  of  organ 
or  mouthpiece  or  viceregent  of  Christ,  or  in  any  other  way 
unique  representative  of  Jesus,  and  so  to  speak  with 
peculiar  authority  as  if  Jesus  spoke  through  him,  must  be 
rejected  as  at  the  very  least  the  victim  of  megalomania  or 
delusion  or  unwise  hero-worship.  Yet  there  are  those  who 
think  they  honor  both  Jesus  and  Paul  when  they  contradict 
the  words  of  Jesus  and  cast  Paul  for  the  role  of  impostor. 
The  utmost  that  can  be  said  truthfully  for  Paul,  as  it  is  the 
utmost  that  he  claimed  for  himself,  is  that  the  promise 
of  Jesus  was  fulfilled  to  him,  and  that  he,  like  the  Twelve, 
like  all  sincere-  disciples  of  Jesus,  was  taught  by  the 
Spirit  of  Truth. 

The  Poman  claim,  that  in  the  Pope  the  Church  has  an 
infallible  organ,  through  whom  Christ  still  speaks  to  his 
faithful  ones,  is  little  more  incredible  or  unhistorical  than 
the  claim  that  Paul  was  made  the  chief  accredited  organ 
of  Jesus.  For  Jesus  has  no  ^^organ,"  has  never  had  one, 
though  he  has  millions  of  organs,  since  every  Christian 
believer  is  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Christ,  in  just  so  far  as 
he  permits  the  Holy  Spirit  to  dwell  in  him  and  speak 
through  him.  This  is  the  teaching  of  all  the  !N'ew  Testa- 
ment documents,  including  the  writings  of  Paul  himself. 

That  Jesus  of  ISTazareth  spent  his  public  life  in  giving 
to  the  Twelve  a  teaching  that  he  declared  to  be  the  Way 
of  Life:  and  that  he  had  no  sooner  left  the  world  than 
from  his  state  in  glory  he  straightway  deputed  another 
man  to  be  his  chief  accredited  organ;  and  that  through 
this  new  mouthpiece  he  proceeded  to  set  aside  the  chief 
part  of  what  he  had  taught  during  his  lifetime,  substitut- 
ing for  his  simple  ethics  a  complicated  group  of  theological 
speculations,  so  as  to  make  a  system  of  theology  the  gospel, 
instead  of  a  proclamation  of  the  Kingdom  of  God — this  is 
a  hypothesis  so  fantastic,  so  lacking  in  all  elements  of 


THE   MAKITs^G   OF   PAUL   THE   APOSTLE  149 

credibility,  that  one  marvels  how  it  could  find  a  sane  advo- 
cate anywhere.  Who  can  credit  that  the  Heavenly  Christ 
taught  through  Paul  something  so  different  from  what 
the  earthly  Jesus  taught  the  Twelve  ?  There  is  the  crux 
of  the  whole  matter.  Can  we,  if  we  would,  regard  the 
Gospels  and  the  Pauline  epistles  as  literary  products  or 
thought  products  of  the  same  personality? 

It  is  a  historical  fact,  of  course,  that  the  entire  Church 
of  the  following  centuries  proceeded  to  substitute  Paul 
for  Jesus,  as  the  authoritative  teacher  of  Christianity. 
For  ''the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus"  the  Fathers  taught  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Paul.  But  they  did  this  without  conscious- 
ness of  what  they  were  doing,  never  attempting  dogmatic 
justification  for  their  conduct.  Had  they  stated  a  reason 
in  the  bald  terms  employed  above,  it  would  no  doubt  have 
seemed  incredible,  even  in  those  times  when  almost  any- 
thing was  credible  and  credited  but  the  truth.  The 
most  gullible  and  careless  of  the  ''Fathers"  would  never 
have  admitted  in  so  many  words,  that  the  glorified  Jesus 
speaking  through  Paul  could  stultify  the  earthly  Jesus 
speaking  through  his  own  lips.  Such  a  proposition  must 
be  carefully  sugar-coated  to  be  swallowed  by  any.  But 
though  this  reason  was  never  explicitly  given,  the  Chureli 
acted  as  if  it  believed  this  to  be  true.  Paul's  teaching 
was  quietly  put  in  place  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  E'ot 
one  of  the  great  theologians  of  the  Church — Athanasius, 
Augustine,  Anselm,  Aquinas,  Melanchthon,  Calvin — drew 
any  considerable  part  of  his  doctrine  from  the  words  of 
Jesus.  All  without  exception.  Catholic  or  Protestant,  are 
expounders  of  Paul. 

Paul  insisted  vehemently,  almost  passionately,  on  the 
genuineness  of  his  apostolic  call,  and  rested  it  on  the  same 
ground  that  validated  the  apostolate  of  the  Twelve — the 
risen  Jesus  had  appeared  to  him  also  with  a  command 
to  be  his  witness.  It  would  not  be  fair  to  urge  against 
him  his  doprecatorv  words  to  the  Corinthians,  "For  T  nm 


150  ^ITXDA:^[ENTALS  of  Christianity 

the  least  of  tlie  apostles,  that  am  not  fit  to  be  called  an 
apostle;"  for  the  words  following  show  this  luimility  to  he 
due  to  a  sense  of  personal  nnworthiness,  not  of  ofiicial 
inferiority:  ''because  I  persecuted  the  church  of  God."(^) 
When  his  official  authority  was  challenged,  this  humility 
dropped  from  him  like  a  garment,  and  he  could  say  to 
the  same  Corinthians,  'Tor  I  reckon  that  I  am  not  a  whir 
behind  the  very  chief  est  apostles.''(^)  But  though  he 
thus  claimed  with  emphasis  entire  official  equality  with 
the  Twelve,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  reprove  Peter  publicly 
when  Peter  was  clearly  in  the  wrong,  he  never  claimed 
more  than  equality.  He  never  asserted  for  himself  such 
a  relation  to  Jesus  as  would  make  the  Twelve  by  com- 
parison mere  ciphers.  Such  conceit  in  Paul  is  as  unthink- 
able as  tolerance  of  it  by  the  Twelve. 

Prom  the  time  of  Constantine  it  was  held  that  the 
promise  of  Jesus  to  send  to  his  disciples  the  Spirit  of 
Truth,  had  been  fulfilled  in  such  wdse  that  the  voice  of  the 
Church  was  the  voice  of  Christ.  A  vast  spiritual  des- 
potism was  gradually  built  on  the  basis  of  that  falsehood, 
and  it  required  the  great  convulsion  of  the  sixteenth 
century  to  win  once  more  for  Christian  men  a  measure 
of  that  liberty  wherewith  Christ  made  us  free,  l^ow  some 
would  build  a  new  spiritual  despotism  on  the  claim  that 
the  voice  of  Paul  is  the  voice  of  Christ.  In  our  day  pure 
religion  must  do  battle  for  the  principle  that  the  voice  of 
Christ  was  heard  once  for  all  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  and 
that  all  other  pretended  voices  of  Christ  are  delusion  or 
sham. 

IV 

We  have  touched  rather  lightly  on  that  event  in  Paul's 
life  which  markejd  the  crisis  in  his  thinking  and  doing: 
the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  him  as  he  was  journeying 

C)   Cor.    15:9. 
(')    2   Cor.    11:5. 


THE    :\fAKlNG    OF    PAUL   THE    APOSTLE  151 

toward  Damascus.  We  have  noted  the  significance  of  the 
event  without  inquiring  exactly  what  took  place.  We 
have  three  accounts,  all  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  one  in 
the  words  of  the  author  of  that  book,  the  other  two  pur- 
porting to  be  the  apostle's  own  narrative  of  what  happened. 
There  are  some  remarkable  dilferences  in  these  accounts, 
which  will  be  made  plainer  if  brief  summaries  are  placed 
in  parallel  columns : 

Acts  9:3-7                      Acts  22:6-10  Acts    26:18-19 

There  flashed  a  light   There   flashed   around  I    saw    a    light    from 

out    of    heaven.               me  a  great  light  out  heaven     above     the 

Saul      fell      to      the       of  heaven.  sun. 

ground.                           I  fell  to  to  ground.  All  fell  to  the  ground. 

Voice:      Saul,      Saul,    Voice:      Saul,      Saul,  Voice:    Saul,   why  do 

why  do  you   perse-       why  do  you   perse-  you    persecute   me? 

cute  me?                            cute   me?  It   is  hard  for  you 

Saul:    Who    are   you,    Saul:    Who    are   you,  to  kick  against  the 

sir?                                     sir  goads. 

Voice:    I    am    Jesus,    Voice:  I  am  Jesus  of  Saul:    ^Vho   are   j'ou, 

whom     you     perse-       ISTazareth,      whom  sir  ? 

cute;    but  rise   and       you   persecute.  Voice:    I    am    Jesus, 

enter   into   the  city    Saul :    What    shall    I  whom  you  persecute 

and  it  will  be  told        do,  sir?  (quite  a  long  speech 

you  what  you  must  Voice:    Arise   and    go  follows,     nearly     a 

do.                                       into  Damascus,  and  hundred  words,  cor- 

there     it     will     be  responding  to  noth- 

told     you     of     all  ing  in  the  other  ac- 

things  that  are  ap-  counts). 
pointed  you   to   do. 

Companions     heard  Companions  beheld  Nothing     said     about 

voice,    but    saw    no        light,    but    did    not  companions      either 

one.                                    hear   voice.  seeing  or  hearing. 

From  careful  comparison  of  these  three  accounts,  as- 
suming that  the  first,  in  the  words  of  Luke,  was  probably 
derived  dii'cctly  from  Paul,  certain  conclusions  inevitably 
follow : 

1.  This  appearance  of  Jesus  was  to  Paul  alone.  The 
first  account  says  that  his  companions  saw  no  one,  and  the 
second  that  they  saw  only  the  light.  The  first  account 
says  that  they  heard  the  voice,  to  which  the  second  gives 
an  apparently  fiat  contradiction,  that  they  did  not  hear 


152  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

the  voice.  But  the  contradition  may  be  only  apparent. 
The.  Greek  word  used  means  both  ^'sound"  and  'Voice," 
and  the  real  fact  probably  was  that  the  companions  of 
Saul  heard  a  sound,  but  no  words.  ]^ot  one  of  the  three 
accounts  says  or  fairly  implies  that  the  companions  either 
saw  Jesus  or  heard  him  speak;  the  contrary  conclusion  is 
clearly  implied  in  the  second  and  third  accounts,  and  is 
quite  consistent  with  the  first.  'No  interpretation  of  the 
three  is  possible,  without  straining  words  or  phrases  un- 
duly, than  this :  Paul  alone  saw  Jesus  and  heard  him  speak 
intelligible  words.  The  others,  at  most,  saw  a  light  and 
heard  a  sound. 

2.  This  appearance  of  Jesus  to  Paul  ivas  not  objective. 
By  ^'objective''  is  meant  an  event  cognizable  by  the  senses 
in  the  ordinary  way.  If  Jesus  had  appeared  in  visible, 
material  form,  would  not  the  others  have  seen  him  as 
clearly  as  Paul?  If  Jesus  had  spoken  audible  words, 
would  not  the  others  have  heard  him  as  distinctly  as 
Paul?  This  is  no  attempt  to  evacuate  Paul's  testimony 
of  its  legitimate  meaning;  it  is  an  attempt  to  evaluate 
the  testimony  in  its  fair  significance,  accepting  just  what 
Paul  tells  us,  but  declining  to  read  into  it  a  meaning  that 
the  words  do  not  fairly  bear.  An  objective  material  ap- 
pearance of  Jesus,  that  could  be  detected  by  the  ordinary 
exercise  of  the  senses  of  sight  and  hearing,  seems  to  be 
carefully  excluded  from  the  narrative  by  the  words  chosen 
to  describe  the  event.  (^) 

3.  The  appearance  of  Jesus  was  therefore  made  to 
Paul's  spirit,  not  to  his  body.  It  was  a  ^^heavenly  vi- 
sion''(^)  but  not  a  physical  sight  of  Jesus  that  he  had; 
words  addressed  to  his  soul,  not  to  his  ear,  that  he  heard. 

(^)  The  latest  biography  of  Paul,  by  an  "orthodox"  Presbyterian, 
the  Rev.  David  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  theM'Crea 
Magee  College,  Londonderry,  a  scholarly  work,  quite  abreast  of  re- 
cent investigations,  takes  precisely  the  above  view  of  the  vision  of 
Paul.     "The  Life  and  Letters  of  St.  Paul,"  New  York,  1021,  p.  53. 

C)   Acts  20:10. 


THE    MAKING    OF    PAUL    THE   APOSTLE  153 

This,  we  repeat,  is  his  own  account  of  the  matter,  in  the 
only  sense  that  his  words  will  fairly  bear. 

4.  Thus  accurately  to  define  the  appearance  of  Jesus 
to  Paul,  according  to  the  apostle's  own  testimony,  is  not 
to  deny  its  reality,  but  only  its  materiality.  ]\Iatter  is  not 
the  only  reality  in  the  universe;  it  is  merely  the  only 
reality  that  addresses  eye  and  ear.  Things  visible  to  the 
eye  are  not  the  only  things  we  see,  nor  are  words  audible 
to  the  ear  the  only  words  we  hear.  Seeing  and  hearing 
are  spiritual  processes,  usually  induced  by  impressions  on 
the  sensorium,  but  not  always.  That  Jesus  appeared  to 
Paul  he  at  least  believed  to  be  the  most  real  thing  in  his 
life,  and  why  need  we  doubt  the  reality  of  this  vision  of 
his  merely  because  others  did  not  see  and  hear?  The 
change  in  his  character,  the  total  transformation  of  his 
life,  are  things  inexplicable  on  any  theory  other  than  his 
own:  the  inexpungable  conviction  of  his  soul  that  Jesus 
met  him  in  the  way  to  Damascus  and  commissioned  him 
to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  nations.  Others  have  pro- 
nounced this  Delusion;  to  Paul  it  was  Pact,  less  open  to 
doubt  than  any  other  fact,  as  certain  to  him  as  his  own 
existence. 

'Rot  is  there  any  answer,  except  mere  refusal  to  accept 
it,  to  the  view  that  this  appearance  may  have  had  a  mate- 
rial basis  of  an  extraordinary  kind.  In  saying  above  that 
it  was  immaterial  and  subjective  we  have  only  used  words 
in  their  ordinary  sense,  as  describing  ordinary  experiences 
of  ordinary  folk.  At  both  ends  of  the  spectrum  there  are 
rays  invisible  to  our  eyes,  because  our  nerves  are  not  sensi- 
tive enough  to  react  to  these  vibrations  of  the  ether.  Above 
and  below  the  musical  sounds  that  we  hear  are  tones  in- 
audible to  us,  or  audible  only  as  noise.  Were  our  ears 
sufficiently  acute,  it  is  possible  that  every  sound  would  be 
musical.  Science  assures  us  that  these  are  dependable 
facts,  and  we  cannot  therefore  say  that  things  do  not  exist 
because  we  cannot  perceive  them.     A  Superman  is  con- 


154  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

ceivable,  with  senses  of  sight  and  hearing  so  far  developed, 
that  his  range  of  knowledge  would  be  immeasurably  great- 
er than  ours.  In  the  realm  of  spirit,  Jesus  was  a  Super- 
man. And  there  have  been  other  choice  spirits,  so  much 
more  exquisitely  attuned  to  the  Infinite,  that  they  have 
apprehended  things  beyond  the  ken  of  most.  Such  was 
Paul,  such  was  Francis  of  Assisi.  We  lesser  breeds  can 
do  no  better  than  receive  gratefully  from  such  men  what 
we  cannot  perceive  for  ourselves.  The  only  obstacle  to 
our  doing  this  is  our  reluctance  to  admit  that  others  sur- 
pass us  in  spiritual  insight. 

The  one  thing  that  cannot  be  questioned  is  the  perma- 
nent effect  of  this  vision  upon  Paul.  It  transformed  the 
whole  man.  Once  for  all  he  w^as  convinced  that  Jesus 
was  still  living,  Son  of  God,  revelation  of  God's  love,  en- 
throned with  power.  He  'Vas  laid  hold  on  by  Christ 
Jesus," (^)  who  had  now  appeared  to  him  ''as  to  the  child 
untimely  born."(-)  Henceforth  Christ  was  to  him  the 
centre  of  all  things  and  he  could  say  ''for  me  to  live  is 
Christ." (^)  And  with  this  new  hope  of  salvation  through 
iove,  not  through  Law,  came  another  conviction  into  his 
soul,  from  which  he  never  wavered,  that  he  was  specially 
commissioned  to  preach  the  Christ  among  the  gentiles.  ('^) 


Men's  religious  experiences  are  determined  by  the  forms 
under  which  they  conceive  religious  truth — though  it  is 
equally  true  that  religious  concepts  are  modified  by  experi- 
ence. Paul  early  learned  to  think  of  God  as  Sovereign, 
and  of  men  as  subject  to  a  system  of  divine  Law,  and  he 
uover  learned  to  think  otherwise.  To  the  statutes  of  God 
he  believed  that  penalties  were  attached,  penalties  both 
demanded  and  inflicted  by  the  justice  of  God,  who  would 

~rTPhil.    3:12. 
(-)    1   Cor.    15:8. 
(^)    Phil.    1:21;    Cal.    2:20. 
(M    Cal.  l:l(i;   Acts  22:21. 


THE   MAKING   OF   PAUL   THE   APOSTLE  155 

bring  every  man  to  judgment. (')  The  divine  Law  dif- 
fered from  the  human,  in  that  to  violate  a  single  statute 
was  to  be  ^'guilty  of  all" — that  is,  a  single  offence  as  irre- 
vocably established  the  status  of  a  sinner  as  if  he  had 
transgressed  all.  In  this  view,  one  sin  was  fatal.  All 
men,  Jew  and  Gentile  alike,  were  subject  to  God's  wrath, 
because  all  had  sinned. (") 

This  was  Paul's  idea  of  Law.  Saul  had  a  quite  differ- 
ent notion.  He  believed  that  for  the  Jew,  God  had  ])ro- 
vided  a  way  of  deliverance  from  sin  through  the  Law 
given  to  Moses.  He  diligently  sought  salvation  by  this 
means,  as  ^^a  Pharisee  of  Pharisees,"  and  he  has  given  us 
a  vivid  account  of  the  result  of  this  effort  in  the  seventh 
of  Romans.  His  diligence  to  obey  the  Law  only  increased 
his  sense  of  guilt,  and  brought  him  to  the  brink  of  despair. 
He  continued  in  increasing  agony  of  soul,  until  the  vision 
of  Jesus  prompted  surrender  to  him  as  Lord  and  trust  in 
him  as  Saviour,  and  this  brought  peace  to  his  troubled 
S23irit.  Martin  Luther  and  John  Bunyan  have  left  us 
records  of  a  similar  experience,  minus  the  personal  ap- 
pearance of  Jesus  to  them.  Either  of  them  could  have 
written  the  seventh  of  Romans  out  of  his  experience  before 
conversion,  and  the  eighth  afterwards. 

Paul  was  thoroughly  loyal  to  the  Master  who  had  ap- 
peared to  him  and  appointed  him  an  apostle.  Loyalty  i^ 
an  attitude  of  soul,  a  product  chiefly  of  the  affections  and 
will,  only  partially  of  the  intellect.  The  most  loyal  souls 
sometimes  misunderstand  their  leader.  And  all  experi- 
ence shows  that  out  of  an  intensely  loyal  multitude  only 
a  few  will  have  real  comprehension  of  the  person  or  in- 
stitution that  is  the  object  of  their  utter  trust.  It  need 
not  surprise  us,  still  less  dismay,  if  we  find  from  the 
letters  of  Paul  evidence  that  he  was  loyal,  not  to  the 
Jesus  of  fact,  the  real  Jesus  disclosed  to  us  in  the  Gospels, 
but  to  an  ideal  Jesus  whom  he  had  created  out  of  the 

(^2   Cor.  5:19;    2  Thess.   1:7,  8. 
{')   Eom.   ch.    1. 


156  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

Messianic  hopes  of  his  race,  the  sacrificial  system  of  Ju- 
daism and  the  philosophic  ideas  that  were  ^'in  the  air"  in 
his  day. 

Paul  did  not  claim  to  be  the  disciple  and  expounder  of 
Jesus  of  ^Nazareth.  He  never  appeals  to  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  for  confirmation  of  his  own  doctrine.  It  cannot 
justly  be  said  that  this  was  due  to  his  vivid  consciousness 
of  the  indwelling  Spirit  of  Jesus,  so  that  he  felt  no  need 
of  confirmation  of  anything  that  he  taught.  He  often 
sought  confirmation,  but  nearly  always  went  for  it  to  "the 
Scriptures,''  that  is  the  Old  Testament,  or  else  appealed 
to  the  facts  of  his  owm  experience.  He  by  no  means  ex- 
pected, as  Jesus  so  uniformly  did,  that  his  teaching  would 
be  accepted  for  its  own  inherent,  self-demonstrating  truth. 
It  was  the  Heavenly  Christ  whose  disciple  Paul  professed 
himself  to  be,  and  he  all  but  boasted  of  his  ignorance  of 
the  Jesus  whose  words  we  have  in  the  Gospels.  The  Jesus 
of  history,  the  Jesus  of  real  life,  has  little  to  do  with  the 
teachings  of  Paul,  and  certainly  the  words  of  Jesus  were 
not  the  chief  formative  influence  in  his  life. 

Being  what  he  was,  a  theologian  by  instinct  and  train- 
ing, and  deeply  versed  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  and  their 
rabbinic  interpretations,  Paul  was  impelled  to  find  an  ade- 
quate theory  of  the  change  that  had  taken  place  in  him 
and  for  the  new  gospel  that  he  felt  himself  commanded 
to  proclaim.  His  type  cannot  exist  with  a  religion  alone ; 
it  must  have  also  a  theology,  a  philosophy  of  religion.  The 
heart  of  the  apostle  was  fully  satisfied  with  the  love  of 
the  Christ  who  had  redeemed  him  from  the  bondage  of 
sin  and  death,  but  his  mind  craved  an  intellectual  basis 
for  his  new  religion,  a  theory  that  would  reconcile  liis 
experience  with  his  changed  conception  of  the  Messiah, 
and  at  the  same  time  save  out  of  the  wreck  as  much  as 
possible  of  his  old  Jewish  ideas.  His  conversion,  his  trust 
in  the  Jesus  whom  he  had  once  fought,  must  be  justified 
to  his  intellect  as  well  as  be  testified  by  his  consciousness. 


THE    MAKING    OF    TAUL   THE   APOSTLE  1^  i 

It  was  this  imperious  necessity  that  produced  Paul's  the- 
ology, and  the  conditions  under  which  it  was  wrought  out 
help  us  to  understand  both  its  value  and  its  limitations. 

The  organizing  thought  of  Paul's  theology  is  the  char- 
acter and  work  of  the  Christ,  but  above  all  the  work.  A^ 
before  his  conversion  the  cross  had  been  his  chief  reason 
for  rejecting  Jesus  as  Messiah,  so  now  he  became  con- 
vinced that  the  cross  was  the  chief  feature  of  Messianic 
work.  He  now  saw  that  the  Messiah  could  die,  because 
Jesus  had  died  yet  still  lived.  He  did  not  die  for  him- 
self— that  were  unthinkable — then  necessarily  for  others. 
The  cross  from  which  Paul  had  formerly  revolted  now 
became  his  glory;  from  a  badge  of  shame  it  was  trans- 
formed into  an  emblem  of  unspeakable  honor.  His  gos- 
pel became  the  gospel  of  the  cross.  The  death  of  Josuh 
was  of  so  much  greater  significance  than  his  life  that  Paul 
felt  he  could  afford  to  know  little  about  the  life.  So  too 
he  could  truly  protest  that  his  gospel  was  not  of  men,  not 
based  on  what  he  had  been  told  of  the  deeds  and  words  of 
Jesus,  but  on  his  personal  vision  of  Jesus  and  his  personal 
ai^prehension  of  the  significance  of  the  cross. 

In  the  light  of  this  conviction,  the  Jewisli  sacrifices 
took  on  a  new  meaning,  and  Paul  worked  out  a  theory  of 
the  sacrificial  character  of  the  death  of  Jesus.  He  did  not 
understand  the  significance  of  that  system  in  the  history 
of  his  own  people.  He  was  quite  ignorant  of  the  fact 
that  the  Jewish  sacrifices  were  part  and  parcel  of  tlint 
system  of  exploitation,  grafting  and  priestcraft  against 
which  the  prophets  inveighed  so  bitterly  and  so  vainly. (') 

{')  Isa.  1:11  sq;  5:23;  Micah,  Chs.  3;  6:  Hos.  4:1,  2;  6:6;  Amos 
5:21  sq.  In  his  so-called  "temple  sermon"  (7:22,  23)  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  is  most  explicit.  "Tims  says  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  God 
of  Irsael:  'Add  your  biniit  ()fi'orin,c:s  to  your  sacrifices  and  eat 
the  meat.  For  on  the  day  I  brought  your  fathers  out  of  Egypt 
I  said  naught  to  them,  nor  did  I  give  them  any  command,  con- 
cerning burnt-ofTerings  or  sacrifices.  But  only  this  did  I  com- 
mand them,  "Hearken  unto  my  voice  and  I  will  be  your  God 
and  you  will  be  ray  people;  and  walk  in  the  way  that  I  ever 
enjoin  upon  you,  so  that  it  may  be  well  with  you."  '  " 


158  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHKISTIANITY 

He  accepted  the  system  as  it  existed  in  his  own  day,  as 
undoubtedly  of  divine  origin,  and  saw  in  it  a  forecast  of 
the  cross.  The  Christ  had  died  in  man's  stead,  bearing 
the  penalty  of  man's  sin,  and  God  accepted  that  death  as 
a  satisfaction  of  the  demands  of  divine  justice. 

Through  ^'faith,"  or  trust  in  Jesus  and  his  work,  a 
sinner  obtains  the  benefit  of  this  sacrifice ;  so  that,  by  a 
legal  fiction,  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  the  perfect  ful- 
filment of  the  divine  Law,  is  transferred  to  him  who  thus 
trusts,  so  that  he  is  ^^justified"  or  acquitted  of  guilt.  (^) 
This  idea  of  justification  by  the  transference  of  Christ's 
righteousness  (or  God's  righteousness,  as  Paul  also  calls 
it)  to  the  sinner  through  "faith,"  is  illustrated  at  length 
in  the  letters  to  the  Galatians  and  Romans  by  the  case  of 
Abraham,  whose  confidence  in  the  promise  of  God  was 
accounted  to  him  as  righteousness.  Faith  and  its  result- 
ing justification  constitute  "salvation"  in  Paul's  mind,  that 
is,  deliverance  from  the  wrath  of  God  and  the  power  of 
sin  and  entrance  into  the  eternal  life  of  Christ.  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah  has  become  a  second  Adam,  a  new  head  of 
the  race.  As  a  result  of  accepting  salvation  through  him, 
we  have  peace  with  God,(")  real  freedom(^)  and  a  new 
character.  (*) 

This  makes  no  pretense  to  being  a  complete  outline  of 
the  Pauline  theology,  but  purports  to  be  no  more  than  a 
tracing  of  the  process  by  which  its  cardinal  doctrines  seem 
to  have  developed  in  his  thinking.  Many  things  are 
omitted,  notably  the  doctrine  that  has  made  the  greatest 
noise  in  the  world,  that  of  "election."  The  point  at  pres- 
ent to  note  is,  that  this  conception  of  Jesus  and  his  work 
is  the  result  of  Paul's  training  in  the  school  of  Gamaliel, 
plus  some  knowledge  of  Roman  law,  such  as  would  be 

{')   Rom.  3:21-24. 

(-)    Kom.  5:1. 

(^)   Rom.  6:4. 

(*)   Rom.  0:22. 


TJIE   MAKING   OF   PAUL   THE   APOSTLE  150 

acqnircHl  easily  by  one  who  possessed  and  valued  the  privi- 
leges of  Roman  citizenship. 

The  notion  of  Adam's  sin  as  the  sin  of  all  men,  and 
physical  death  as  well  as  spiritual  the  result  of  sin,  is 
rabbinic  tlieoloo-y.  (^)  The  conception  of  vicarious  sin- 
bearing  is  Jewish — and  pagan  also,  for  it  is  found  in 
nearly  all  religions,  especially  in  such  as  make  much  of 
animal  sacrifices.  Jewish  are  also  other  elements  of  Paul's 
teaching,  of  less  fundamental  importance,  such  as  his  in- 
cidental remarks  about  angels  and  demons.  The  Law, 
he  says,  was  given  by  angels, (")  thus  following  rabbinic 
tradition  in  preference  to  the  Old  Testament  record.  His 
doctrine  of  the  divine  predestination,  hinted  by  the  propli- 
ets,  developed  by  the  rabbis,  is  another  case  of  his  indebt- 
edness to  Gamaliel. 

Of  probably  Gnostic  origin  is  his  idea  of  two  contrasted 
aeons,  the  earthly  present  and  the  heavenly  future,  which 
took  so  strouG^  hold  of  his  imagination.  He  differs  from 
such  later  Gnostics  as  Valentinian  or  Basilides  chiefly  in 
ethical  passion;  intellectually  he  is  their  blood  brother. 
His  doctrine  of  the  Son(^)  is  hardly  distinguishable  from 
pure  Gnosticism — an  emanation  of  the  divine  essence,  be- 
gotten before  all  worlds  and  made  the  agent  of  God  in 
creation.  The  difference  is  that  Paul  puts  into  his  doc- 
trine an  ethical  content  not  found  in  the  cold  speculations 
of  later  Gnosticism.  It  is  these  Judaeo-pagan  notions  in 
Paul's  writings  that  for  ages,  with  unconscious  irony,  men 
have  been  proclaiming  as  the  real  gospel  of  Jesus,  the  only 
pure  and  undefiled  ^^Christianity." 

Paul  has  another  doctrine  of  the  cross,  to  be  sure,  wliich 
is  essentially  that  of  Jesus,  when  he  says,  ^'I  have  been 
crucified   with   Christ."     But  this,   the  really   Christian 

(M   Rom.   ch.   5. 

(^)    Gal.    3:19. 

(^)  Tt  has  often  been  ])ointe(l  onl,  that  tlie  ehissioal  ])assa<Te. 
Phil.  2:6-9,  is  more  easily  reconcilable  with  the  later  heretical 
homoiousion   than  with    the   orthodox   Jiomooufiwn. 


160  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

doctrine  of  the  cross^  Paul's  admirers  have  always  prac- 
tically ignored.  If  challenged,  no  doubt  they  would  give 
it  a  perfunctory  assent;  but  it  cuts  no  figure  in  their  the- 
ology or  in  their  preaching. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
PAUL  THE  CHPtlSTIAN  EABBI 


His  contemporaries  scarcely  tliought  of  Paul  as  a  theolo- 
gian. It  was  left  to  his  successors  to  appreciate  his  great- 
ness as  a  Christian  thinker,  but  to  the  men  of  his  own  age 
he  was  preeminent  as  missionary  and  organizer.  It  was 
to  John,  the  ^'beloved  disciple,"  and  not  to  Paul,  that  the 
title  ''Theologian'^  was  given  by  the  early  Church.  The 
last  three  centuries  have  been  as  much  inclined  to  under- 
rate John,  as  the  first  three  underrated  Paul,  l^everthe- 
less,  it  was  the  underrated  Paul  whom  the  Church  actually 
followed. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  fundamental  idea  of 
Paul,  as  of  all  who  have  followed  him  as  a  theological 
leader,  was  the  Sovereignty  of  God.  He  was  probably  not 
conscious  that  this  w^as  a  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  priest- 
hood, deeply  embedded  in  the  Law,  which  was  mainly  of 
priestly  origin,  and  little  sympathized  with  by  the  proph- 
ets, to  whom  God's  Fatherhood  made  a  stronger  appeal. 
The  apostle's  idea,  derived  primarily  from  the  Law,  was 
also  much  shaped  by  the  social  and  political  institutions 
of  his  age.  It  was  natural  that  the  Poman  Empire  should 
become  the  t-sqie  of  divine  government  amonir  its  subjects,' 
even  its  unwilling  and  rebellious  subjects,  like  the  Jews^ 
And  so  Paul  generally  illustrates  God's  character  and  acts 
from  the  thrones  of  emperors  and  kings  and  from  their 
courts.     His  own  function  appears  to  him  that  of  am- 

161 


162  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

bassador,  ( ^ )  and  the  life  of  Jesus  on  earth  and  his  exalta- 
tion at  the  right  hand  of  God  are  described  in  terms  of 
sovereignty.  (')  To  him  God  is  King,  Ruler  of  the  world, 
absolute  despot,  and  therefore  supreme  Lawgiver  and 
Judge.  The  mere  good  pleasure  of  God  is  the  cause  of 
all  existence  and  events,  and  no  other  explanation  is  neces- 
sary or  even  possible.  In  God's  relation  to  us,  justice 
therefore  becomes  the  chief  element.  He  is  merciful,  to 
be  sure,  but  he  must  exercise  his  power  of  pardon  so  as 
not  to  impair  the  validity  of  his  Law.  And,  like  the  des- 
pots of  this  world,  he  is  capricious  in  his  mercy — ^'He 
will  have  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy," (^)  and 
there  is  nothing  more  to  be  said.  To  violate  his  Law, 
which  is  holy  and  good,  is  to  deserve  a  penalty  inconceiv- 
ably great;  and  the  w^rath  of  God  is  kindled  against  all 
evil-doers.  As  all  men  have  sinned,  all  are  alike  help- 
less and  hopeless  before  this  wrath — nothing  remains  to 
them  but  misery  in  this  world  and  in  the  world  to  come. 

But  we  have  also  seen  that  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  presents 
to  us  a  wholly  different  ideal  of  God,  which  John  cau^-lit 
and  set  forth  better  than  Paul.  Jesus  illustrates  the  char- 
acter of  God,  not  from  the  State,  but  from  the  family. 
God  is  *^Our  Father  who  is  in  Heaven.''  His  chief  char- 
acteristic is  love  of  all  the  world,  an  impartial  love  that 
sends  rain  alike  on  just  and  unjust.  If  Paul  conceives 
the  mercy  of  God  as  arbitrary  and  bestowed  on  a  few 
chosen  ones,  Jesus  conceives  God's  mercy  as  freely  given 
to  all  who  will  receive  it.  The  "wrath"  of  the  Pather- 
God  is  directed,  not  against  the  sinner,  but  against  sin — 
it  is  the  revolt  of  purity  from  impurity,  of  goodness  from 
everything  evil.  Even  an  earthly  father,  just  so  far  as 
he  is  good,  "hates"  evil,  but  does  not  hate  his  sinning 
child;  the  moment  his  wrath  is  kindled  against  his  child, 

r)  2  Cor.  5:20. 
C)  Phil.  2:1-11. 
(8)    Rom.  9:15;   cf.  Ex.   33:19. 


PAUL  THE  CHRISTIAX  RABBI  16'3 

he  ceases  to  measure  up  to  our  ideal  of  a  truly  good  father. 

These  decided  differences  in  ideas  of  God  necessitate 
corresponding  differences  regarding  ^4aw"  and  "penalty." 
Paul  conceives  the  Law  of  a  Sovereign  in  the  heavens  as 
like  human  law  in  principle :  it  is  a  definite  statute,  whose 
validity  rests  on  the  will  and  authority  of  the  maker,  and 
has  a  definite  penalty  affixed,  proportioned  to  the  gravity 
of  the  offense.  This  penalty  must  be  regarded  as  just 
punishment  of  a  lawbreaker  by  an  offended  ruler,  and  is 
imposed,  not  for  the  offender's  sake,  but  for  the  ruler's, 
to  uphold  his  dignity  and  authority.  On  the  other  hand, 
a  Heavenly  Father's  law  is  an  ethical  principle,  an  ex- 
pression of  his  goodness  and  love,  a  demand  for  that  per- 
fection in  his  people  which  is  found  in  himself.  Jesus 
says  little  about  penalty,  and  leaves  us  to  infer  its  nature 
from  what  he  does  say  about  the  Father's  love.  The  in- 
ference that  seems  best  to  accord  with  his  teaching  is: 
since  God's  Law  is  the  expression  of  his  love,  what  we 
call  the  penalty  of  sin  is  but  the  discipline  by  which  he 
seeks  to  turn  the  erring  back  to  himself.  As  in  nature, 
so  in  grace,  penalty  is  the  inevitable  consequence  of  trans- 
gressing Law;  it  is  not  suffering  inflicted  in  retaliation 
for  transgression. 

Let  us  pursue  this  parallel  a  little  further,  for  it  is  full 
of  instruction.  God  has  ordained  such  a  connection  be- 
tween things  in  nature  that  when  we  transgress  a  "law^" 
w^e  suffer  certain  consequences.  What  w^e  call  a  "law  of 
nature"  is  simply  a  imiform  method  in  which  God  oper- 
ates through  things.  If  we  act  by  another  method,  w^e  ex- 
perience results  more  or  less  disagreeable,  and  by  repeated 
results  of  this  kind  we  are  taught  to  respect  the  "law" 
and  conform  our  conduct  to  it.  When,  in  our  baby  days, 
we  put  our  hand  on  a  hot  stove,  in  spite  of  maternal  warn- 
ings, the  smart  taught  us  to  respect  God's  method  of  op- 
eration that  we  call  heat,  and  so  to  adjust  our  relations  to 
it  as  to  make  it  minister  to  our  comfort,  not  discomfort. 


164  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CIIEISTIANITT^ 

The  burn  was  not  punishment,  not  an  act  of  God's  ven- 
geance because  we  have  disobeyed  one  of  his  "lawa^,"  but  a 
means  of  salutary  discipline.  But  for  such  lessons  in  our 
tender  years,  we  might  at  a  later  time  do  ourselves  a  far 
worse  mischief. 

Ethical  penalty  is  just  like  that:  a  necessary  coL'se- 
quence  of  wrong-doing,  a  discipline  into  right-doing,  not 
an  act  of  vengeance  on  the  part  of  an  angry  God.  There 
is  no  such  thing  in  nature  as  retribution  or  punishment, 
and  we  have  no  ground  to  assume  such  a  principle  in 
God's  moral  order.  Men  have  transferred  their  imper- 
fect laws  and  institutions  to  the  heavens,  and  imputed  to 
God  the  shortcomings  and  inconsistencies  and  brutalities 
of  their  "justice."  A  loving  father  cannot  inflict  bruises 
and  wounds  on  his  child  as  retaliation  for  wrong-doing; 
but  he  may  permit  a  large  liberty,  in  the  exercise  of  which 
his  child  may  bruise  and  wound  himself  into  a  better 
knowledge  of  safe  and  right  conduct.  The  father  will  do 
this  for  the  child's  own  good,  because  no  other  Imowl- 
edge  than  that  gained  through  personal  experience  is  of 
real  or  permanent  value.  So  the  Father  of  our  spirits, 
we  may  be  very  sure,  will  condemn  no  child  of  his  to 
misery,  temporary  or  everlasting;  but,  in  order  to  form 
in  us  an  ethical  character,  and  to  discipline  us  into  right-' 
eousness,  he  will  permit  us  to  incur  the  misery  that  cer- 
tainly follows  wrong-doing,  and  to  remain  in  misery  until 
we  turn  to  him  and  seek  forgiveness  and  righteousness. 

The  principles  of  right  conduct  are  founded  in  human 
nature  and  express  its  highest  possibilities  and  joys.  To* 
act  contrary  to  these  principles  is  to  fail  to  realize  our 
best,  to  establish  a  state  of  disharmony  and  suffering  with- 
in ;  it  is  not  to  be  conceived  as  losing  eternal  blessedness, 
except  as  such  loss  is  the  necessary  accompaniment  of  los- 
ing present  blessedness.  The  consequences  of  ethical 
transgression  are  sometimes  spiritual,  sometimes  physical, 
generally  both ;   and  both   are  as  certain  as  gravitation. 


TAUL    THE    CTIRTSTIAN    RABBI  165 

There  is  no  rational  justification  for  ^'punishment"  under 
human  law,  but  the  welfare  of  society  and  the  welfare  of 
the  individual.  God  needs  no  protection  from  what  man 
can  do;  consequently,  the  only  rational  justification  for 
penalty  inflicted  by  him  is  that  it  promotes  human  wel- 
fare, disciplines  men  into  higher  character,  brings  the 
wandering  child  of  God  back  to  his  Father. 

It  appears  from  comparison  of  these  ideas  of  God,  sin, 
penalty,  that  Paul's  teachings  are  not  so  much  Avrong  as 
inadequate.  His  ideas  are  too  exclusively  legalistic  and 
not  sufficiently  ethical.  ''Where  there  is  no  law,  neither 
is  there  transgression" (^)  is  a  saying  that  clearly  marks 
his  limitations.  In  this  he  does  not  stand  alone  among 
the  apostles,  for  even  the  spiritual  John  defines  sin  as 
"transgression  of  law."(^)  Both  Paul  and  Jesus  at- 
tempted to  make  known  the  character  of  God  and  his  re- 
lations to  man  through  human  analogies,  and  human  analo- 
gies are  imperfect  illustrations  of  the  divine.  That  God 
is  both  Sovereign  and  Father  may  well  be  our  conclusion. 
Both  methods  of  illustrating  his  character  are  valid  and 
helpful.  But  in  our  conception  of  God,  one  function  or 
the  other  is  almost  certain  to  predominate.  Shall  it  be 
paternal  love  or  kingly  authority?  In  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  paternal  love  certainly  predominates.  In  the  teacl:- 
ing  of  Paul  kingly  authority  takes  first  place.  Which 
shall  we  follow  in  our  thinking,  Jesus  or  Paul  ? 

In  our  idea  of  law  we  must  likewise  choose  as  its  basal 
principle  either  the  will  of  the  lawmaker  or  his  character. 
Is  the  moral  law  binding  on  us  because  God  wills  it  so, 
or  because  this  is  his  only  possible  self-expression  ?  From 
Jesus  we  get  one  idea  of  God's  law,  from  Paul  another. 
To  which  shall  we  attribute  greater  authority?  The  an- 
swer cannot  be  refused  by  any  genuine  disciple  of  Jesus : 
He  is  the  fullest,  the  clearest,  the  highest  revelation  of 
God,  and  his  word  is  for  us  final  autliority. 

(T^Rom.   4:15. 
(')    1  John  3:4. 


166  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHEISTIANITY 

II 

From  these  fundamental  postulates  of  Jesus  and  Paul 
follow  divergent  ideas  of  sin  and  salvation.  Paul's  fa- 
vorite word  for  sin  is  dj-iocpTia,  a  missing  of  the  mark, 
failure  to  reach  a  standard ;  but  he  occasionally  uses  other 
unrighteousness,  and  dSiuia,  words,  like  JtaQdjrTOOjia . 
transgression,  a  turning  aside  from  the  way  of  right  and 
truth.  It  is  not  so  much  the  use  of  these  words,  which 
are  also  found  in  the  Gospels,  as  their  constant  recurrence 
in  connection  with  the  Law  6  vojiog,  that  marks  the 
apostle's  conception  of  sin  as  essentially  legalistic.  (^) 

It  is  not  so  easy  to  deduce  from  what  Jesus  says  about 
sin  what  his  fundamental  idea  is;  he  specifies  and  illus- 
trates rather  than  defines.  But  one  can  gather  from  his 
teaching  as  a  whole  that  his  conception  of  sin  is  the  asser- 
tion of  self  against  God  and  our  brothers,  since  he  makes 
the  prime  condition  of  discipleship  that  a  man  should  ut- 
terly renounce  self.  In  the  mind  of  Jesus,  therefore,  sin 
Avould  appear  to  be  the  choice  of  individual  good  in  place 
of  the  common  good.  It  is  the  opposite  of  righteousness, 
which  means  every  method  by  which  man  shows  love  to 
God  and  his  fellows.  Jesus  never  indicated  that  he  re- 
garded sin  as  primarily  the  violation  of  law,  but  he  vir- 
tually defined  it  when  he  gave  as  his  summary  of  the 
Law,  "Thou  shalt  love."  Sin  is  failure  to  love,  refusal 
to  love,  and  love  is  essentially  selfless. 

"Salvation,"  as  regards  the  individual,  has  a  twofold 
meaning  in  the  ^ew  Testament,  and  in  all  Christiiin  lit- 
erature. It  denotes  first  of  all  that  inward  harmony  and 
peace,  assurance  of  safety  here  and  hereafter,  which  re- 
sults from  trust  in  Jesus  and  conformity  to  the  Avill  of 
God.     The  attainment  of  this  peace  is  usually  called  "con- 

(^)  The  word  d|j,aQTia  occurs  47  times  in  Romans  alone,  more 
than  one-fourth  of  the  number  of  times  (171)  in  the  entire  N.  T. 
vouo;  is  found  in  Ivoinans  71  times  out  of  192;  l)ut  dSixi'a  (7)  and 
:xa(j6j:xx(M[ia  (9)   are  much  less  frequent. 


PAUL   THE    CHRISTIAN    RABBI  167 

version,"  and  is  normally  a  sudden  and  joyful  experience. 
But  salvation  also  denotes  the  process  of  fashioning  life 
and  character  into  likeness  of  the  new  ideals  that  this  ex- 
perience brings  us — a  process  that  begins  at  once  and  con- 
tinues to  the  end  of  life,  called  by  theologians  ''sanctifica- 
tion."  It  is  an  experience  of  deep  and  growing  blessed- 
ness, rather  than  of  great  joy.  The  goal  of  salvation  is 
attainment  of  perfect  character. 

Jesus  conceived  and  described  his  own  mission  as  that 
of  a  Deliverer.  What  sort  of  deliverance  he  brought  to 
men  he  himself  explained  in  the  synagogue  at  E'azareth: 
it  is  deliverance  from  captivity.  Men  are  slaves  of  sin: 
Jesus  offers  freedom.  It  is  also  described  as  rescue  of 
the  lost,  those  who  have  wandered  from  Father  and  home. 
To  effect  his  purpose  he  said  that  he  gave  his  life  as  a 
ransom (^) — his  life,  not  merely  his  death,  as  theologians 
have  narrowly  interpreted  him.  He  also  came  to  reveal 
God  to  man,  because  to  know  God  is  Eternal  Life;(^) 
and  so  his  mission  may  be  described  as  the  giving  of 
abundant  Life  to  all  who  trust  in  him.  (^) 

The  works  of  Jesus  illustrate  his  words,  especially  the 
works  of  healing  that  fill  so  large  a  place  in  the  Gospels. 
The  blind,  deaf,  palsied,  leprous,  demoniacs,  have  bodily 
infirmities  that  correspond  to  spiritual  defects  and  de- 
formities, from  which  Jesus  is  men's  Deliverer  or  Saviour. 
He  came  to  seek  and  deliver  such,  as  he  makes  plain  in 
his  parables  of  the  Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost  Coin,  the  Lost 
Son.  ;N"owhere  perhaps  is  this  idea  of  salvation  more 
sharply  defined  than  in  the  story  of  Zaccheus.  When 
this  unjust  and  oppressive  tax-collector  was  convinced  of 
the  error  of  his  ways  and  declared  his  purpose  to  live  a 
new  life,  Jesus  said,  ^'To-day  is  salvation  come  to  this 
house."     The  salvation  of  Zaccheus  consisted  in  his  adop- 

(^)   Mark  10:45. 

(-)    John  17:3. 

C)    John    .3:15;     6:53;     10:10,    28. 


168  ftjjn^damentals  of  chkistianity 

tion  of  a  wholly  new  attitude  toward  God  and  men,  which 
was  expressed  in  his  offer  of  restitution.  He  had  acquired 
a  new  social  conscience;  he  had  experienced  the  sense  of 
brotherhood;  he  had  promptly  accepted  and  conformed  to 
the  new  standard  of  conduct  that  brotherly  love  required 
of  him. 

Jesus  represents  such  an  ethical  volte  face  also  in  the 
case  of  the  Prodigal.  The  key-word  of  that  story  is, 
^'But  when  he  came  to  himself."  For  the  first  time  the 
young  man  saw  himself  and  his  conduct  in  the  true  light, 
and  the  consequence  was  immediate  revulsion  of  feeling, 
determination  to  forsake  the  past  and  change  his  relation 
to  his  father.  But  Paul  represents  a  like  change  in  our 
relations  to  God,  we  are  told,  as  not  of  our  will  but  wholly 
of  divine  grace,  ^Taith  is  the  gift  of  God."(^)  Xo  doubt 
there  is  a  sense  in  which  this  is  true;  everything  we  have 
and  are  is  God's  gracious  gift.  Sight  is  the  gift  of  God, 
but  God  does  not  see  for  us ;  food  is  the  gift  of  God,  but 
we  must  procure  food  for  ourselves  and  eat  it  for  our- 
selves. Capacity  of  trust  is  God's  gift,  but  exercise  of 
trust  in  a  particular  case  is  our  act.  God  does  not  save 
us  by  any  miracle.  He  does  not  snatch  us  as  brands  from 
the  burning,  or  rescue  us  from  the  slough  of  evil,  and  at 
once  place  us  on  the  pinnacle  of  righteousness.  Witli  his 
aid,  to  be  sure,  but  by  our  own  effort,  we  must  painfully 
climb  from  the  depths  to  the  heights.  Salvation  must  be 
won,  not  given,  and  no  other  salvation  would  be  worth 
having,  even  if  it  were  possible. 

That  is  common  sense  and  sound  psychology  and  Chris- 
tian experience.  Paul's  teaching  is  not  irreconcilable  with 
it,  if  fairly  interpreted ;  but  it  has  been  given  an  interpre- 
tation for  many  generations  that  makes  it  totally  contra- 
dictory of  our  consciousness.  If  God  produces  or  compels 
or  gives  faith,  it  is  his  faith,  not  ours. 

Paul's  first  premise  in  working  out  his  doctrine  of  sal- 

(^)    Eph.    2:8. 


PAUL   THE.   CHRISTIAN    RABBI  1G9 

vation  was :  The  wrath  of  God  impends  over  a  sinful  world, 
which  he  will  soon  bring  to  judgment.  The  way  of  de- 
liverance from  this  wrath  has  been  provided  by  the  mercy 
of  God,  through  the  deatli  of  His  Soii^  whieli  constitutes 
a  propitiation  for  the  w^orld's  sin,  because  of  its  sacrificial 
efficacy.  The  method  of  deliverance  is  ''faith,"  or  glad 
and  thankful  acceptance  of  this  sacrifice  that  divine  love 
in  the  Father  conceived  and  divine  love  in  the  Son  con- 
summated. On  the  ground  of  this  faith,  God  holds  the 
sinner  to  be  ''justified"(')  or  acquitted  at  the  bar  of  jus- 
tice, the  rigliteousness  of  Christ  being  by  a  legal  fiction  at- 
tributed or  ' 'imputed"  to  him.  The  result  is  a  new  man, 
who  brings  forth  the  ''fruits  of  the  Spirit,"  conduct  and 
character  such  as  a  man  delivered  from  sin  should  exhibit. 

Dante  endeavors  to  improve  on  the  theologians  in  his 
statement  of  this  forensic  view  of  salvation,  in  his  De 
Monarcliia.  In  the  conclusion  of  the  second  book  he 
elaborately  argues  that  Jesus,  by  suffering  under  the  sen- 
tence of  Pilate,  delegate  and  servant  of  the  Emperor,  and 
so  the  agent  of  a  worldwide  imperium,  made  salvation 
certain.  For  all  mankind  were  sinners  through  the  fall 
of  Adam,  and  so  a  penalty  inflicted  by  one  who  had  juris- 
diction over  less  than  the  entire  human  race,  would  have 
been  insufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  all  men.  In  at- 
tempting to  strengthen  Paul's  argument,  Dante  has  very 
efl^ectively  reduced  it  to  absurdity.  iN'o  such  frigid  and 
rigid  calculations  can  be  admitted  into  modern  theology, 
liowever  germane  they  may  have  seemed  to  the  mediaeval. 

Another  part  of  the  theological  notion  of  sin  cannot 
fairly  be  charged  to  Paul,  namely,  the  doctrine  known  as 
"total  depravity."  Total  depravity  is  a  doctrine  equally 
slanderous  to  Paul  and  to  human  nature.     It  is  violently 


(M  In  the  Jewish  and  Roman  law  of  Paul's  time,  "justification" 
was  the  acquittal  of  the  accused  by  the  jud<i:e.  It  was  not  pardon  of 
an  offence,  hut  a  declaration  that  he  was  not  gruilty  of  oflVnce.  Paul 
uses  this  procedure  to  describe  and  illustrate  the  Christian's  ex- 
perience in  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 


170  FUNDAMENTALS  OF   CHRISTIANITY 

opposed  to  facts  of  consciousness  and  expirience,  even  in 
its  milder  interpretation,  not  that  every  man  is  as  bad  as 
he  can  be,  but  that  in  every  part  of  his  nature  he  is  cor- 
rupted by  sin,  so  that  he  can  do  nothing  good.  Conscious- 
ness testifies  clearly  that  we  can  do  good,  that  we  do  achieve 
good,  that  good  and  bad  are  intermingled  in  every  char- 
acter and  in  every  man's  conduct.  If  it  is  true  that  we 
inherit  a  bias  toward  evil  from  our  parents,  it  is  equally 
true  that  we  inherit  a  bias  toward  good ;  our  parents  trans- 
mit to  us  characters,  as  well  as  estates — capitalized  virtue, 
no  less  than  capitalized  wealth. 

On  the  whole,  it  must  be  concluded,  even  after  making 
all  possible  allowance  for  misunderstanding  and  distortion 
by  interpreters,  that  the  difference  between  Jesus  and  Paul 
regarding  sin  and  salvation  is  a  very  real  one,  beginning 
in  their  fundamental  ideas  and  extending  through  all  de- 
tails. Paul's  salvation  is  a  scheme  for  the  deliverance  of 
individuals,  not  of  society.  It  does  not  aim  at  the  cstiil;- 
lishment  of  a  Kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  but  definitely 
postpones  the  realization  of  that  Kingdom  to  the  world  to 
come,  in  the  saying  that  ^^flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit 
the  Kingdom  of  God."(^)  A  social  religion  was  wholly 
outside  the  ideas  of  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles;  but 
it  was  the  chief  message  of  Jesus  to  the  world. 

Ill 

From  his  idea  of  God's  Fatherhood  and  universal  love, 
Jesus  proceeded  to  his  teaching  concerning  God's  provi- 
dence, or  care  for  all  his  children.  That  poetic  and  elo- 
quent passage  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  beginning, 
^'Be  not  anxious  for  your  life,"(")  is  perhaps  his  fullest 
exposition  of  his  thought,  but  it  finds  frequent  briefer  ex- 
pression in  his  other  discourses: 

(M    1    Cor.    15:50. 

(  =  )    Matt.  0:25;  cf.  Luke  12:22. 


PAUL    THE    CIIRISTIAX    RABBI    •  171 

Are  not  two  sparrows  sold  for  a  farthing, 

And  not  one  of  tlicm  will  fall  on  the  ground  without 
jour  Father. 
But  the  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered: 

So  do  not  fear — you  are  worth  more  than  many  spar- 
rows. (^) 

So  when  he  sent  out  his  disciples  two  by  two  to  pro- 
claim the  Kingdom  of  God  through  the  towns  of  Galilee, 
he  bade  them  trust  in  God's  providence.  In  this  case, 
God's  care  for  them  was  to  be  shown  through  the  love  and 
hospitality  of  their  brothers: 

Heal  sick,  raise  dead,  cleanse  lepers,  cast  out  demons: 

You  received  without  pay,  give  without  pay. 
Take  no  gold  or  silver  or  copper  in  your  girdles, 

No  handbag  for  the  journey,  nor  change  of  clothing. 
Neither  sandals  nor  staff, 
For  the  worker  is  worthy  of  his  food.(-) 

Paul  also  strongly  emphasizes  the  providence  of  God 
in  the  case  of  believers:  'Tor  we  know  that  all  things 
work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God" — but,  as 
the  words  following  show,  this  is  a  corollary,  not  from 
the  love  of  God  for  all  his  creatures,  but  from  God's  elec- 
tion of  a  few  to  a  special  grace ;  for  the  apostle  adds,  '*to 
them  that  are  called  according  to  his  purpose." (^)  This 
doctrine  of  the  div^ine  election  is,  according  to  many  in- 
terpreters of  Paul,  his  distinctive  teaching,  and  it  lies  at 
the  basis  of  that  system  of  theology  known  as  Calvinism. 

Election,  according  to  these  interpreters,  is  the  appoint- 
ment of  some  men  to  eternal  life,  which  logically  implie-^ 
that  others  are  not  elect  and  so  cannot  attain  to  eternal 
life.  Election  depends  upon  the  divine  sovereignty;  it 
is  the  unconditioned  exercise  of  the  divine  will,  wdiicli  it 
is  impious  to  question.  Luther  even  maintained  that  this 
act  of  will  must  be  conceived  as  purely  arbitrary  and  with- 

rTMatt.  10:29-31. 
(-)    Matt.  10:5-10. 
(■')    Rom.  8:28. 


172  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

out  reason,  on  the  ground  that  to  make  God's  will  depend 
on  reason  would  be  to  suppose  something  higher  than  God. 
To  maintain  God's  sovereignty,  therefore,  we  must  firmly 
hold  that  he  acts  irrationally!  ^N'ot  all  interpreters  have 
drawn  so  extreme  a  conclusion  from  the  illustration  that 
Paul  borrowed  from  Jeremiah (^)  about  the  potter  and 
his  clay.  The  apostle  repeats  the  prophet's  question,  ^'Has 
not  the  potter  a  right  over  the  clay?"  May  he  not  make 
of  it  whatever  seems  good  to  him  ?  A  vessel  for  honor  or 
a  vessel  for  dishonor,  a  vessel  for  use  or  a  vessel  for  de- 
struction ?(-)  And  t]ie  answer  is  not  Yes,  but  No,  for 
men  are  not  clay,  not  inanimate  things  with  which  man  or 
God  may  do  whatever  pleases,  but  creatures  made  in  God's 
image,  whom,  since  has  has  made  them  such,  God  is  Ixnuid 
by  his  own  character  of  goodness  and  justice  to  treat 
ethically. 

If  the  ninth  of  Romans  were,  as  so  many  have  inter- 
preted it,  an  unqualified  assertion  of  God's  right  to  deal 
with  men  as  he  pleases,  we  could  not  receive  from  Paul  or 
any  other  such  a  doctrine  of  God  without  serious  modifica- 
tion. God's  "rights"  are  the  right  to  be  God  and  the 
right  to  act  like  God.  It  is  not  in  accord  with  God's  cliar- 
acter,  as  Jesus  has  revealed  him  to  us,  to  refuse  mercy  to 
any.  We  must  seek  a  better  exegesis  of  Paul.  If  we 
study  this  chapter  without  theological  prepossessions,  we 
shall  see  clearly  that  it  is  of  the  nature  of  an  argumentum 
ad  hominem,  a  rebuke  to  Jewish  racial  prejudice  and  re- 
ligious conceit.  Then  we  shall  not  try  to  draw  from  it 
consequences  that  Paul  has  himself  repudiated  elsewhere. 

For  Paul  is  nearly  as  emphatic  as  Jesus  himself  in 
proclaiming  the  universal  love  and  mercy  of  God.  ISToth- 
ing  could  be  more  explicit  than  his  word  to  Timothy  about 
"God  our  Saviour,  who  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved 
and  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth." (""')     And  if  any 

n'jer.  18:2. 

(-)    Rom.  9:21. 

(')    1  Tim.  2  A;  cf.  2  Pet.  3:9. 


PAUL    THE    CHRISTIAN    RABBI 


173 


doubt  whether  these  are  genuine  words  of  Paul,  they  surely 
cannot  question  his  assertion  to  the  Corinthians  that  ''God 
was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself," (^)  which 
he  repeats  to  the  Colossians  in  nearly  the  same  words,  that 
it  was  God's  pleasure  that  in  Christ  should  all  the  fulness 
dwell  ''and  through  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  him- 
self .  .  .  whether  things  on  the  earth  or  things  in 
the  heavens." (^)  ^or  can  any  sane  interpretation,  other 
than  the  desire  of  God  for  all  men's  salvation,  be  placed 
on  the  arijument  in  the  fifth  of  Romans,  especially  in 
verses  12-21,  where  an  elaborate  parallel  is  drawn  between 
the  effect  of  Adam's  sin  on  the  race  and  the  effect  of 
Christ's  righteousness — the  one  as  universal  as  the  other. 
This  represents  an  ideal  of  salvation,  no  doubt,  not  the 
fact,  but  an  ideal  that  cannot  possibly  be  reconciled  with 
God's  having  w^illed  that  any  man  shall  lose  eternal  lifo. 
Calvin  would  not  only  set  Paul  at  variance  with  Jesus, 
but  makes  Paul  quarrel  with  Paul. 

This  notion  of  an  election  of  the  few  to  salvation  and 
the  many  to  damnation  is  not  a  Christian  idea,  but  a  Jew- 
ish. Both  Jesus  and  Paul  had  to  contend  with  it  and  did 
contend  with  it.  The  Jews  were  absolutely  certain  that 
they  were  an  elect  people,  the  special  favorites  of  God, 
marked  out  from  all  others  as  peculiar  recipients  of  Je- 
hovah's mercy.  They  quoted  with  unction  the  saying  of 
their  great  Lawgiver:  "For  thou  art  a  holy  people  to 
Jehovah  thy  God;  Jehovah  thy  God  has  chosen  thee  to 
be  a  special  people  to  himself  from  all  the  peoples  that 
are  on  the  face  of  the  earth." ('"')      Thv  whole  world  wa- 


(M    2    Cor.   5:19. 

{')    Col.    1:20. 

(')  Doiit.  7:6  and  re])eate(l  in  14:2.  But  this  was  the  voice  of 
the  Law,  of  priestly  ori^fin.  Had  they  read  their  prophets  better, 
the  Jews  would  have  had  less  of  this  conceit:  "Verily  you  are  not 
better  to  me,  men  of  Israel,  than  the  Kushites.  saith  Jehovah.  I 
did  indeed  lead  forth  the  Israelites  from  Eiirypt,  but  I  also  led  forth 
the  Philistines  from  Kaphtor,  and  the  Arameans  from  Kir."  Amos, 
9:7. 


174  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

ultimately  to  be  theirs  and  Messiah's  kingdom  was  to  be 
an  everlasting  kingdom.  In  the  sure  Avord  of  prophecy 
they  beheld  the  coming  world  dominion  of  the  Jewish  race, 
as  the  Eoman  then  dominated  the  world.  Salvation  was 
for  the  Jew:  the  Gentile  had  no  part  or  lot  in  it.  That 
they  were  made  a  special  people  by  God  in  order  to  be 
custodians  and  stewards  of  his  grace,  that  they  were  a 
nation  elect  to  be  a  blessing  to  the  Gentiles  whom  they 
despised,  was  clearly  said  in  their  sacred  writings,  but 
never  understood  by  them;  and  whatever  glimmerings  of 
truth  the  prophets  had  led  some  to  see  had  faded  out  of 
mind  long  ago.  Nothing  but  religious  conceit  and  arro- 
gance was  left  in  the  mind  of  a  Jew  of  Paul's  generation. 
It  was  these  ideas  that  Jesus  found  to  be  insuperable 
obstacles  to  success  in  his  mission,  and  he  vigorously  com- 
batted  them  on  every  appropriate  occasion.  In  his  dis- 
course at  N'azareth  he  antagonized  this  national  conceit 
with  great  boldness  aud  energy: 

But  I  tell  you  truly,  there  were  many  widows  in  Israel  in 
Elijah's  days,  when  the  heaven  w^as  shut  up  three  years  and 
six  months,  when  a  great  famine  came  over  all  the  land ;  and 
to  no  one  of  them  was  Elijah  sent,  but  only  to  Zarephath,  in 
the  land  of  Sidon,  to  a  woman  that  was  a  widow.  And  there 
were  many  lepers  in  Israel  in  the  time  of  the  prophet  Elisha; 
and  no  one  of  them  was  cleansed,  but  only  ISTaaman  the 
Syrian. 

This  rebuke  of  their  ])ride  produced  a  quick  and  violent 
reaction  among  his  hearers:  those  who  at  first  had  won- 
dered at  the  gracious  words  of  Jesus  were  turned  by  this 
discourse  into  an  angry  and  murderous  mob. 

On  the  other  hand,  theologians  have  professed  to  draw 
from  the  writings  of  Paul  a  doctrine  of  election  in  violent 
contrast  to  that  of  Jesus,  not  to  say  contradiction — an 
election  of  some  men  to  eternal  life  and  others  to  eternal 
deatli,  a  choice  having  no  ethical  basis  but  only  the  arbi- 


PAUL   THE    CHRISTIAN    RABCI  175 

trary  good  pleasure  of  the  Almighty;  a  decree  that  has 
condemned  the  majority  of  every  generation  to  eternal 
misery,  and  that  will  continue  so  to  condemn  them  to  the 
end  of  time.  This  is  the  most  frightful  doctrine  that  the 
intellect  of  man  has  ever  conceived — even  Calvin  had  the 
grace  to  declare  it  ''horrible/'  while  he  maintained  it  to 
be  true.  And  the  real,  Simon-pure  Calvinism  insists  that, 
in  the  eternal  counsels  of  God,  this  decree  to  elect  preceded 
the  decree  to  create ;  so  that  God  deliberately  brought  the 
human  race  into  existence  with  the  express  purpose  of 
damning  the  greater  part  of  it.  This  doctrine  imputes 
to  God  a  cruelty  more  fiendish  than  even  a  Kaiser  and 
his  minions  were  able  to  devise;  yet  as  a  climax  its  advo- 
cates have  the  impudence  to  say  that  this  is  all  for  the 
''glory"  of  God!  The  blasphemy  of  such  a  doctrine  is 
even  gi*eater  than  its  horror.  Where  is  the  loving  Father 
of  Jesus,  who  does  not  will  that  one  of  his  little  ones  shall 
perish  ?  Ah,  says  the  Calvinist,  the  "little  ones"  of  Jesus 
are  the  "elect"  of  Paul.  But,  dear  sir,  who  told  you  so  ? 
JSTeither  Jesus  nor  Paul,  of  a  certainty. 

Election  of  some  to  life  and  of  some  to  death  is  a  doc- 
trine utterly  incompatible  with  the  conception  of  God  as 
Father,  and  not  easy  to  reconcile  even  with  the  idea  of 
God  as  King.  A  father  must  have  no  favorites  among  his 
children ;  a  king  should  treat  all  his  subjects  with  impar- 
tial justice.  True,  fathers  do  have  favorite  children  and 
kings  are  often  unjust;  but  that  is  because  men  are  fal- 
lible and  peccable.  We  recognize  and  condemn  such 
things  as  shortcomings,  failures  to  realize  our  highest 
ideals  of  even  earthly  relations;  how  then  do  we  dare  at- 
tribute them  to  God?  According  to  Jesus,  man  is  by 
nature  the  child  of  God  and  never  loses  this  status,  though 
he  may  ignore  or  deny  it.  However  far  the  country  into 
which  he  may  wander,  it  is  always  open  to  him  to  return 
to  his  Father  and  be  reinstated  in  home  and  love.  The- 
ology sees  in  man  one  who  is  by  nature  a  child  of  wrath. 


17G  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHKISTIANITY 

the  object  of  God's  abhorrence  and  vengeance.  A  few  be- 
come adopted  sons,  by  the  Father's  choice,  just  as,  in  Ro- 
man law,  one  not  a  son  by  blood  became  one  in  law  by 
act  of  the  paterfamilias. 

If  such  could  be  shown  to  be  the  teaching  of  Paul,  he 
could  no  longer  be  accepted  as  a  religious  teacher  of  the 
Christian  world.  The  God  of  orthodoxy  can  no  more  be 
ours  than  the  German  God.  The  day  is  long  past  when 
such  a  theology  can  be  believed.  We  know  today  that 
Jesus  understood  God  better  than  John  Calvin  did.  But 
it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  such  theology  is  contained 
in  Paul's  writings,  fairly  interpreted ;  he  has  had  fathered 
upon  him  many  things  that  he  never  taught,  for  which  he 
should  not  be  held  responsible.  Paul  does  teach  a  doctrine 
of  election,  not  an  election  to  eternal  life  or  death,  but  an 
election  to  service.  God  has  chosen  all  men  to  salvation, 
but  he  has  chosen  a  certain  few  to  be  the  special  means  of 
making  salvation  known  and  available  to  the  rest.  In  one 
stmse  all  Israel  was  so  chosen,  ''because  to  them  were  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God."  The  divine  election  was  not 
for  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  but  for  the  salvation  of  men 
generally.  In  Abraham,  not  merely  his  desceiidants,  but 
all  the  nations  were  to  be  blessed. 

Theology  has  hitherto  been  a  deductive  science  like  ge- 
ometry, a  system  logically  perfect,  a  chain  of  inferences 
from  a  few  definitions  and  axioms.  Tlieology  sliouhi  be 
an  inductive  science,  like  physics  or  chemistry.  Human 
experience  of  what  God  and  man  are  should  furnish  its 
fimdamental  material,  from  which  its  first  principles 
should  be  obtained  by  induction.  Deduction  should  be 
limited  to  inferences  j)ropei-ly  drawn  from  these  materials. 
So,  for  example,  a  doctrine  of  divine  decrees  cannot  Ix* 
deducted  from  assumed  facts  about  God  and  his  plans,  or 
metaphysical  speculations  about  his  mental  processes,  or 
from  assumptions  regarding  a  divine  "nature"  of  which 
we  know  less  than  nothing;  what  God  has  "decreed"  must 


PAUL   THE    CHRISTIAN   RABBl  177 

be  learned  by  patient  induction  from  the  facts  of  nature 
and  history,  in  which  he  has  given  us  the  only  trustworthy 
revelation  of  himself.  The  Bible  is  of  course  a  most  im- 
portant part  of  this  historical  revelation,  but  it  is  not  the 
whole. 


CHAPTEE  IX 
PAUL  THE  SPECULATIVE  THEOLOGIAN 


It  is  in  regard  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  that  Jesus  and 
Paul  differ  most.  So  little  was  Jesus  a  theologian,  that  in 
regard  to  all  the  ''great  doctrines" — esteemed  so  essential 
by  theologians,  ancient  and  modern,  that  to  deny  them  is 
to  deprive  one  of  right  to  call  himself  a  Christian — the 
nominal  founder  of  Christianity  either  said  nothing  at  all, 
or  so  little  and  so  vaguely  as  to  make  it  impossible  to 
say  just  what  he  did  mean.  Impossible,  of  course,  for 
any  but  a  theologian.  And  the  theologians  by  no  means 
agree  among  themselves  as  to  what  he  did  mean,  while 
agreeing  that  he  meant  something.  It  is  sheer  fact,  with 
no  whit  of  exaggeration,  that  if  we  had  for  the  documents 
of  our  religion  only  the  Gospels,  nobody  could  formulate 
a  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  Predestination,  Orig- 
inal Sin,  Atonement  or  Justification  by  faith.  What  most 
people  call  ''the  gospel"  is  not  in  the  Gospels. 

It  is  to  Paul  that  we  must  turn  for  material  out  of  whieh 
to  formulate  these  doctrines.  He  teaches  a  doctrine  of 
Atonement,  in  distinction  from  Jesus, (^)  who  teaches  only 
the  fact  that  the  Atonement  is  supposed  to  explain  and 
justify — the  fact,  namely,  that  God  forgives  sins.  Jesus 
teaches  nothing  formally  and  systematically,  but  his  ideas 

(^)  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  theologians,  having  drawn  from  ex- 
traneous sources  a  doctrine  of  vicarious  sacrifice  and  expiation  of  sin, 
have  read  this  back  into  some  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  It  is  incon- 
trovertible, however,  that,  had  we  the  words  of  Jesus  only,  no  doc- 
trine of  vicarious  atonement  would  ever  have  been  invented. 

178 


PAUL  THE    SrECULATIVE   TJLEOLOGIAX  ITO 

are  unmistakable.  Forgiveness  of  sins,  as  he  looks  at  it, 
is  the  restoration  of  the  relation  of  Father  and  sons  which 
has  been  interrupted,  but  not  destroyed,  by  wroni>-(loin,G'. 
The  Old  Testament  correctly  represents  this  transaction 
nnder  several  different  figures : 

Yea,  thou  wilt  cast  into  the  depths  of  the  sea  all  our  sins. — 
Mi.  7:19. 

For  thou  hast  cast  all  my  sins  behind  thv  back. — Isa. 
38:17. 

Thou  didst  take  away  the  iniquity  of  thy  people, 

Didst  cover  all  their  sins. — Ps.  85  :2. 

I  have  blotted  out,  as  a  thick  cloud,  thy  transgressions, 

And,  as  a  cloud,  thy  sins. — Isa.  44:23. 

In  that  day  a  fountain  will  be  opened  for  the  house  of 
David  and  for  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  for  sin  and  for 
uncleanness. — Zech.  13:1. 

For  I  will  forgive  their  guilt  and  their  sin  will  I  remember 
no  more. — Jer.  31 :34. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  divine  forgiveness,  we  are  re- 
ceived into  the  same  intimate  and  loving  relations  with 
our  Father  as  if  we  had  never  sinned.  Jesus  says  nothing 
that  implies  any  power  in  forgiveness  to  restore  lost  in- 
nocence, or  undo  the  effects  of  sin,  or  annul  penalty.  The 
father  of  the  parable  could  and  did  restore  the  wanderer 
to  his  place  as  son  in  the  household,  but  not  all  liis  h)ve 
could  restore  the  innocence  of  youth  or  give  back  those 
wasted  years  or  make  good  the  squandered  inheritance. 

Forgiveness  is  a  personal  act ;  it  restores  status ;  it  does 
not  directly  affect  character;  it  cannot  alter  the  past.  The- 
ologians have  confused  personal  relationship,  always  sub- 
ject to  change,  with  accomplished  facts  that  are  unchange- 
able. They  have  not  discriminated  the  unrighteousness  of 
sin  from  its  penalty,  and  popular  theology  shows,  as  might 
be  expected,  more  confusion  of  ideas  than  systematic. 
Jesus  sharply  makes  these  discriminations.     lie  shows  us 


180  FUNBxVMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

that  God  is  willing  to  forgive  just  as  soon  as  the  erring 
child  will  let  himself  be  forgiven;  and  his  forgiveness  is 
free  and  unconditional,  restoring  the  child  completely  to 
his  former  status.  More  than  this  God  cannot  do;  the 
sinner  must  bear  the  penalty  of  his  misdeeds ;  and  he  must 
painfully  work  out  for  himself  a  new  character.  Here 
God  can  help ;  he  cannot  give. 

Jesus  shows  that  the  forgiveness  of  God  is  exactly  like 
man's  in  quality,  when  he  commands  his  disciples  to  for- 
give one  another.  We  are  to  forgive  our  erring  brother 
^ 'until  seventy  times  seven,"  that  is,  without  limit.  And 
the  reason  assigned  is,  because  God's  mercy  to  us  is  limit- 
less. The  principle  is  stated  in  many  forms,  of  which 
this  is  one: 

But  love  your  enemies  and  do  them  good, 
And  lend  never  despairing; 
And  your  reward  will  be  great, 
And  you  will  be  sons  of  the  Most  High  I 

For  he  is  kind  toward  the  unthankful  and  evil.(^) 

Even  the  one  word  of  Jesus  that  seems  to  indicate  an 
implacable  attitude  on  God's  part  toward  any. 

The  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit  will   never  be 
forgiven , 

is  misunderstood  when  it  is  taken  in  that  sense.  This 
sin  is  unforgivable,  not  because  the  sin  is  so  heinous  that 
the  mercy  of  God  here  reaches  its  impassable  limit,  but 
because  the  nature  of  the  sin  is  proof  of  a  fixed  state  of 
wickedness  and  hatred  of  God  that  makes  reception  of 
forgiveness  impossible.  One  who  blasphemes  the  Holy 
Spirit  desires  no  forgiveness,  will  not  let  himself  be  for- 
given. Here  is  also  the  key  to  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee 
and  Publican.  God  was  no  less  willing  to  forgive  one 
than  the  other;  but  the  Publican  sought  forgiveness  and 
obtained   it,   while  tlie  proud   Pharisee  would  not  bo  for- 

(^)   Luke    0:36. 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE   THEOLOGIAN  181 

given  since  he  had  no  consciousness  that  he  needed  for- 
giveness. (^) 

When  we  forgive  a  man  who  has  wronged  us,  we  do  not 
require  him  to  pay  any  penalty,  either  in  person  or  by 
proxy.  AVe  just  forgive  him,  take  him  back  into  our  con- 
fidence and  love  as  if  nothing  had  happened,  and  strive 
so  to  forget  wliat  he  has  done  that  in  time  it  fades  out  of 
memory  altogether.  But  along  comes  the  theologian  and 
tells  us  that  analogies  drawn  from  human  forgiveness  are 
misleading  when  applied  to  God's.  God,  the  theologian 
assures  us,  is  a  Being  of  infinite  holiness,  and  sin  against 
him  is  an  infinite  wrong,  deserving  therefore  an  infinite 
penalty.  And  God  cannot  forgive  as  man  does,  for,  be- 
cause his  holiness  is  infinite,  somebody  must  pay  this  in- 
finite penalty.  But  why?  What  do  we  really  know  of 
these  ^'infinites"  about  which  the  theologian  talks  so  glibly  ? 
Theology  ju2:gles  with  words  as  children  play  with  "jack- 
stones."  A  good  part  of  theology  is  no  more  than  an  in- 
tellectual game,  and  auioug  its  bio*  words,  with  their  vague, 
shadowy,  indefinite  meanings,  one  searches  in  vain  for 
something  like  reality  and  certain  knowledge. 

If  a  mere  sinful  man  is  under  ethical  obligation  to  for- 
give his  brother  seventy  times  seven,  is  a  holy  Being  en- 
tirely freed  from  that  obligation  merely  because  he  is 
"infinite,''  whatever  that  may  mean  ?  The  holier  a  Beina: 
is,  and  the  more  "infinite"  he  is,  the  more  ethically  obli- 
gated he  should  seem  to  be  to  forgive,  and  if  his  holiness 
is  perfect  his  forgiveness  should  be  boundless.  That  is 
the  only  sound  reasoning  from  what  wo  know  of  thc^ 
finite  to  the  unknown  and  unknowable  "infinite."  And 
when  we  speak  of  God's  "obligation"  we  mean,  of  course, 
an  obligation  from  Avithin  himself,  that  he  can  be  nothing 
else  than  what  he  is,  perfectly  good,  hence  perfectly  mer- 
ciful.    Why  is  there  an  ethical  obligation  on  man  to  for- 


(M    Luke  18:10  sq. 


182  ruNDA.MENTALS  OF  ciieistia:^ity 

give  ?  Jesus  says,  because  God  forgives.  As  our  great 
poet  has  it,  mercy 

is  an  attribute  to   God  himself, 
And  earthly  power  doth  then  show  likest  God's 
When  mercy  tempers  justice. 

Jesus  even  declares  God's  forgiveness  to  be  exactly  like 
man's,  for  he  bade  his  disciples  pray,  'Torgive  us  our 
debts,  as  we  have  forgiven  our  debtors" ;  and  in  addition 
assured  them : 

For  if  you  forgive  men  their  trespasses, 

Your  Heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive  you.(^) 

And  in  these  cases  the  words  ^^as"  and  '^also"  mean  '^in 
the  same  manner." 

II 

One  of  the  chief  functions  of  Jesus,  the  greatest  in  the 
mind  of  Paul,  was  to  assure  men  of  the  love  of  God  and 
his  willingness  to  forgive  sin.  But  Jesus  did  not  change 
the  nature  of  God;  he  only  revealed  God  more  fully  to 
the  world.  He  did  not  devise  any  new  machinery  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins ;  he  only  taught  men  to  rely  more  con- 
fidently on  their  Heavenly  Father's  love.  God  always 
forgave  sins ;  he  forgives  sins  now ;  he  always  will  forgive 
sins.  He  forgives  because  he  is  God,  our  Father  in 
Heaven.  And  Jesus  is  as  explicit  in  what  he  teaches 
about  the  ground  of  forgiveness,  as  he  is  about  the  fact: 
God  does  not  forgive  because  sins  have  been  expiated,  but 
because  he  loves  us.  He  does  not  hate  men;  he  never 
hated  men;  he  never  needed  to  be  placated;  because  he 
loves  all  men  and  has  always  loved  them. 

Not  only  Jesus,  but  apostles  and  prophets,  speak  with 
one  voice  in  this  matter.  ^'Herein  is  love:  not  that  we 
loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the 


(')   Matt.    G:14. 


PAUL  TKE   SPECULATIVE   THEOLOGIAN  1S3 

propitiation  for  our  sins.''(0  ^^^^s  I  live,  says  tlie  Lord 
Jehovah,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked; 
but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live."(^)  Of 
course  there  are  texts  that  can  be  given  a  different  sense, 
but  the  prevailing  testimony  of  Old  Testament  and  JSTew 
is  to  the  abounding  love  and  mercy  of  God.  The  heresy 
of  all  heresies  is  the  doctrine  that  God  was  once  in  a  state 
of  vengeful  w^rath  against  man,  that  demanded  somehow  to 
be  appeased.  There  was  never  any  excuse  for  such  a 
heresy,  wdien  the  Scriptures  explicitly  declared  that  God 
was  never  so  estranged  from  man  that  He  needed  to  be 
reconciled.  The  orthodox  theology  since  the  time  of  Au- 
gustine, and  perhaps  before  also,  has  been  a  criminal  libel 
on  the  nature  of  God — criminal  because  the  theologians 
deliberately  closed  eyes  and  ears  to  the  declaration,  ''God 
is  love."  For  their  crime  there  is  no  excuse,  though  there 
must  be  forgiveness. 

Paul  has  been  made  the  scapegoat  for  this  theological 
crime ;  theologians  have  professed  to  draw  most  of  their 
material  from  him.  But  Paul  is  not  guilty;  at  least,  he 
is  only  partially  guilty;  much  that  is  found  in  historic 
Paulinism  is  not  Pauline.  The  core  of  Paul's  "gospel," 
as  we  have  seen,  was  a  message  of  forgiveness  and  redemp- 
tion through  trust  in  Christ,  not  through  deeds  of  law. 
''The  word  of  reconciliation"  was  an  inseparable  element 
of  the  Pauline  gospel  from  the  first,  but  it  was  only  gradu- 
ally that  the  simple  gospel  became  a  theological  system. 
For  their  perversion  of  the  apostle's  teaching,  the  the- 
ologians of  a  later  age  were  able  to  make  plausible  appeal 
to  his  fundamental  idea  of  God,  as  Sovereign,  Lawgiver, 
Judge.  He  was  so  conscious  of  his  own  failure  to  attain 
salvation  by  works  of  Law  that  at  times  he  thought  God 
was  angry  with  him,  and  with  all  other  men  as  like  sin- 
ners.    An  angry  God  must  be  placated;  the  sacredness 

C)    1  John  4:10. 
C)    Eze.   33:11. 


184  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

of  Law  demanded  payment  of  penalty  by  somebody,  if  not 
by  the  sinner  himself,  then  by  somebody  else  in  his  behalf. 
So  God  set  Christ  forth  ''as  a  propitiation  through  faith 
in  his  blood,  for  the  exhibition  of  his  righteousness."  (^) 
God,  in  the  apprehension  of  Paul,  could  forgive  sins  only 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  Christ  through  his  vicarious  death 
had  paid  the  penalty  of  sin.     Through  an  act  of  trust  in 
Jesus,  the  merit  of  this  sacrifice  is  transferred  to  the  sin- 
ner and  his  sins  are  forgiven.     This  is  historic  Paulinism. 
But  Jesus  says  nothing  about  his  agency  in  procuring 
the  forgiveness  of  sins.     He  does  not  so  much  as  hint  that 
God  is  ready  to  forgive  only  because  of  something  that  he 
has  done  or  is  about  to  do.     In  all  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
man's  soul  stands  face-to-face  with  God.     Immediate  com- 
munion with  God,   unmediated  forgiveness  by  a  Father 
who  loves,  was  the  great  Message  of  Jesus  to  the  world : 
I  say  not  to  you  that  I  will  pray  the  Father  for  you. 
For  the  Father  himself  loves  you.(^) 
A  doctrine  of  the  atonement  must  be,  therefore,  largely 
extra-scriptural  and  entirely  outside  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus.     Consequently  attempts  to  state  such  a  doctrine 
have  been  many  and  contradictory.     Only  a  single  saying 
of  Jesus  can  be  fairly  quoted  in  favor  of  any  theory,  and 
that  is  the  remark  that  he  had  come  ''to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many."'     Even  if  we  say  "give  his  life"  is  the 
same  thing  as  "give  his  death,"  which  is  more  than  doubt- 
ful exegesis,  is  it  credible  that  Jesus  meant  to  teach  that 
crude  military  theory  of  the  atonement  held  by  some  of 
the  early  Fathers:  that  the  devil  had  acquired  possession 
of  mankind  through  sin,  so  that  men  were  his  lawful  cap- 
tives, and  Jesus  could  purchase  their  release  only  by  dying 
as  a  ransom  for  them?     Or  that  hardly  less  crude  mer- 
cantile theory,  like  the  balancing  of  accounts  in  a  heavenly 
ledger — so  much  blood  of  Christ  over  against  so  much  sin 

rTRom.    3:25. 

C)   John    16:26.  ,  ,' 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE   THEOLOGIAN  185 

of  man  ?  If  not  these  things,  then  what  did  Jesus  mean  ? 
We  do  not  know.(^)  It  is  an  isolated  saying  of  his,  a 
metaphor  on  which  no  light  is  thrown  by  other  words.  But 
hoAv  slender  basis  for  a  doctrine  of  atonement,  this  single 
metaphor  of  doubtful  significance! 

This  is  the  only  saying  of  Jesus  that  may  be  fairly 
quoted  as  bearing  on  a  doctrine  of  atonement;  but  there 
is  another  saying  that  has  been  unfairly  pressed  into  serv- 
ice. In  the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  eucharist, 
Mark  quotes  Jesus  as  saying  of  the  cup,  ''This  is  the  blood 
of  the  covenant,  which  is  poured  out  for  many."  The 
other  Synoptics,  with  slight  variations  of  no  particular  siji- 
nificance  (Luke's  ''new"  covenant  is  the  most  striking) 
give  the  same  words;  but  Matthew  alone  adds,  "unto  re- 
mission of  sins."  As  to  this  apparent  connecting  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  wdth  the  death  of  Jesus,  two  things 
are  to  be  said:  first,  that  these  words,  occurring  only  in 
tlie  latest  Synoptic,  are  almost  certainly  the  accretion  of 
tradition  to  what  Jesus  actually  said;  and,  secondly,  even 
if  Jesus  actually  did  speak  these  words,  it  is  possible,  even 
I^robable,  that  he  meant  nothing  more  than  that  the  shed- 
ding of  his  blood,  the  offering  of  his  life,  would  result  in 
bringing  to  men  deliverance  from  sin — which  all  Chris- 
tians admit  to  be  the  fact. 

For  no  means  can  be  conceived  so  potent  as  his  own 
voluntary  and  gaiiltless  death,  by  which  Jesus  could  cre- 
ate in  his  followers  then  and  for  all  time  that  lofty  type 
of  character  which  gladly  renounces  self  and  welcomes 
death  for  others  as  the  highest  privilege,  the  crown  of 
Christian  service.     It  is  the  spectacle  of  that  death  that 

(^)  There^  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  saying  of  Jesus  is  an  echo 
of  Tsaiah,  whose  depiction  of  the  sufferinsf  Servant  of  Jehovah  made 
a  deep  impression  on  his  mind.  As  to  the  fact  of  tlie  life  and  death 
of  Jesus  constituting  a  "ransom"  for  men,  that  is  to  say,  actual 
deliverance  from  sin,  no  follower  of  his  would  dispute  it.  Jesus 
has  delivered  men  from  sin;  he  has  reconciled  men  to  Cod;  being 
lifted  up,  he  has  drawn  all  men  to  himself.  But  how?  That  is 
where  men  differ. 


186  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

has  ever  since  led  men  to  repentance,  change  of  mind  and 
will  toward  God  and  man,  a  definite  break  with  the  old 
life  and  the  entering  on  a  new  life,  marked  by  unselfish 
love.  And  this  new  life,  which  Jesus  came  to  impart  to 
men  abundantly,  is  salvation,  deliverance  from  sin.  For 
unselfish  love  is  deliverance  of  man  from  all  evil  and  the 
rock  foundation  of  all  good. 

But  while  Jesus  cannot  fairly  be  made  to  support  any 
theory  of  atonement,  Paul's  teaching  may  quite  plausibly 
be  made  to  support  the  Grotian  or  governmental  theory, 
whether  the  apostle  so  intended  or  not.  His  argument  in 
Rom.  3  :21-26  is  very  like  the  Grotian  demonstration  that 
the  death  of  Christ  made  it  ^^safe"  for  the  Ruler  of  the 
world  to  forgive  sin  without  impairing  the  majesty  of  his 
law.  But  nothing  is  clearer  to  any  student  of  theological 
thought  than  that  it  would  be  wasted  time  to  advance  crit- 
ical objections  against  any  theory  of  the  atonement,  for 
the  various  doctrines  confute  each  other  in  turn.  Grotius 
undermines  Anselm,  and  Abelard  and  Socinus  undermine 
both.  Efforts  have  been  made  in  recent  years  to  construct 
some  sort  of  ^^ethicaF'  theory,  that  will  combine  the  merits 
of  all  and  avoid  the  defects  of  each,  but  with  no  very  grati- 
fying results. 

The  difficulty  with  all  theories  regarding  atonement  is 
with  the  very  idea  of  atonement,  if  that  means  (as  it 
nearly  always  does)  anything  like  expiation  of  sin,  trans- 
ference of  penalty,  and  other  like  notions,  which  are 
neither  Christian  nor  Jewish,  but  pure  pagan.  Nothing 
but  ignorance  of  the  real  nature  of  ^'^moral  laws''  could 
have  led  men  to  suppose  that  ethical  penalty  could  be 
either  escaped  or  transferred.  ^NTothing  but  such  ignorance 
could  have  made  men  suppose  that  extra-ethical  sanctions 
of  a  future  order  (the  pains  of  hell)  were  necessary  to 
ensure  a  penalty  for  sin,  but  for  which  the  ways  of  evil 
might  be  trodden  with  impunity.  Orthodoxy  appreciates 
neither  sin  nor  virtue.     Theories  of  the  atonement  fail 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE   THEOLOGIAN  187 

because  they  are  pitched  in  too  low  an  ethical  key.  There 
was  doubtless  a  time  when  men  were  inclined  to  take  a 
too  easy  view  of  moral  evil  and  to  regard  their  transgres- 
sions as  mere  peccadillos.  It  then  did  them  good  to  be 
told  of  a  God  whose  anger  burned  against  sinners,  and  of 
a  forgiveness  of  sins  that  was  possible  only  because  some 
one  had  borne  the  sinner's  penalty  for  him.  But  Jesus 
gave  us  higher  teaching  regarding  God,  lifted  the  race 
permanently  to  a  loftier  ethical  level,  and  made  these 
crude  views  henceforth  untenable.  It  has  taken  many 
centuries  fully  to  realize  this,  and  a  large  part  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  Jesus  have  not  yet  realized  it,  but  are  still  ob- 
sessed by  the  ideas  of  a  darker  time. 

Ill 

Paul's  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  in  its  simplest  form, 
was,  ^'He  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures." 
But  what  did  Jesus  say  of  bis  death  and  its  significance  ? 
In  most  instances  he  speaks  of  his  coming  death  merely 
as  a  fact.  Only  in  one  case,  already  considered,  do  his 
words  point  to  any  significance  in  his  death.  His  plain- 
est words  about  the  meaning  and  effect  of  his  death  are: 

And  just  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 

So  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up, 
That  everyone  who  trusts  in  him  may  not  perish, 

But  have  eternal  Life. (^) 

When  you  shall  lift  up  the  Son  of  Man 
Then  you  will  know  that  I  am  he.(-) 

And  I,  if  I  'be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  win  to  myself 
all  men.(^) 

But  the  utmost  that  Jesus  says  in  such  cases  is  that  bis 


(')   John    ."^iH,    15. 
(  =  )    8:28. 
(=")    12:32. 


188  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

death  will  convince  men  that  he  is  indeed  the  Messiah, 
the  Saviour  of  men,  and  that  the  effect  of  his  death  will 
therefore  be  to  draw  all  men  to  him.  So  far  as  this  bears 
on  the  atonement,  it  is  distinctly  favorable  to  the  ''moral 
influence"  theory,  which  Abelard  was  the  first  to  propound 
and  Horace  Bushnell  has  been  foremost  to  advocate  in 
our  day.  It  is  not  his  death  which  Jesus  says  will  have 
power  to  save  men.  but  his  words: 

I  say  these  things  to  you  that  you  may  be  saved. (^) 
The  words  I  have  spoken  to  you  are  spirit  and  life. (-) 

His  own  view  of  the  significance  of  his  death,  Jesus 
probably  gave  most  definitely  in  his  parable  of  the  vine- 
yard. (^)  As  Son  of  God,  climax  of  a  long  line  of  proph- 
ets, he  was  killed  because  men's  selfish  interests  were  op- 
posed to  his  mission.  Death  was  the  inevitable  end  of  his 
work.  To  be  sure,  a  single  parable  should  not  be  assumed 
to  give  an  exhaustive  exposition  of  truth,  but  at  any  rate, 
there  is  no  hint  of  expiation  or  ransom  here. 

It  is  maintained  by  some  that  Jesus  does  hint  at  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  atonement,  if  he  does  not  explicitly 
teach  it,  in  what  he  says  of  the  cross.  Jesus  has  two  say- 
ings, and  only  two,  about  the  cross,  which  he  repeats  in 
varied  forms  at  different  times.  The  first  has  already 
been  cited:  it  is  about  his  own  cross,  and  it  has,  as  we 
have  just  seen,  no  sacrificial  or  propitiatory  significance. 
The  other  saying  has  to  do  with  the  cross  of  his  disciples : 
"Whosoever  does  not  bear  his  own  cross  and  come  after 
me,  cannot  be  my  disciple."  Man  crucified  with  Christ, 
not  Christ  crucified  for  man,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  cross 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesu^.  The  true  doctrine  of  the  cross 
therefore  is  the  supreme  beauty  of  a  life  of  self-devotion 
to  others — self -surrender  so  complete  that  it  does  not 
shrink  from  ''the  Jast  full  measure  of  devotion" ;  and  that 

n~John    5:34. 

C)   John  6:63. 

C*)    Matt.  21:33-44. 


PAUL  TJIE    SPECULATIVE   TIIEOLOGIAI^  189 

all  who  would  have  fellowship  with  the  joys  and  glories 
of  the  Kingdom  must  follow  Jesns  in  the  hard  and  thorny 
path  of  utter  renunciation  of  self. 

The  same  idea  fills  a  large  place  in  Paul's  writings.  "I 
am  crucified  with  Christ,"  he  tells  the  Galatians;(^)  and 
to  the  Corinthians  he  speaks  of  ^'always  carrying  about 
in  the  body  the  dying  of  Jesus." (^)  He  elaborates  the 
thought  in  many  of  his  letters :  he  is  to  die  w^ith  Christ  in 
order  to  rise  with  him;(^)  he  follows  after,  so  that  he  may 
know  the  sufi^erings  of  Christ  and  be  conformed  to  his 
death  ;(*)  through  Christ  the  world  is  crucified  to  him  and 
he  to  the  world  ;(^)  and  he  insists  that  our  hope  of  sharing 
the  glory  of  Christ  is  based  on  the  fact  that  we  have  first 
shared  the  passion  of  Christ's  self-sacrificing  love.  (^)  But 
this  doctrine  of  the  cross  has  no  relation  to  atonement. 
Christian  people  have,  in  fact,  nearly  evacuated  this  say- 
ing of  all  significance  by  their  silly  custom  of  calling  every 
disagi'eeable  duty  "taking  up  the  cross."  The  metaphor 
cannot  be  misunderstood  save  by  wilfulness;  it  is  what 
Jesus  called  on  other  occasions  "renouncing  life"  or  self. 
The  cross  w^as  the  instrument  of  death,  and  the  condemned 
criminal  bore  his  own  cross  to  the  place  of  execution,  as 
Jesus  did. 

This  doctrine  of  the  cross  is  fundamental  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  but  though  it  may  properly  enough  be  de- 
scribed as  a  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  it  is  not  a  doctrine  of 
expiation.  It  may  even  be  called  vicarious  sacrifice,  for 
though  Jesus  does  not  say  a  word  about  expiation,  he  does 
say  much  about  the  redemptive  love  that  always  involves 
the  sutTering  of  the  righteous  for  the  wicked,  the  innocent 
for  and  with  the  guilty.     And  this  is  because  he   con- 

(^)  Gal.  2:20. 

n  2  Cor.  4:10. 

(')  Rom.    6:4,    8. 

{*)  Phil.  3:10. 

{')  Gal.   6:14. 

(•)  2   Cor.    1:7;    Rom.  8:17. 


190  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

ceives  salvation  in  social  terms,  not  in  individual.  Vicari- 
ous suffering  runs  all  through  life,  and  finds  its  supreme 
expression  upon  the  cross  of  Calvary. 

But  in  Paul's  view  of  Christ's  death  some  find  expi- 
atory significance.  His  doctrine  of  atonement  was  worked 
out  to  solve  his  own  personal  problem,  which  he  assumed 
to  be  the  problem  of  all  other  men,  because  all  other  men 
are  like  himself,  sinners.  And  that  problem  was.  How 
could  God's  Anointed  die  a  shameful  death?  How  could 
God  condemn  his  Son  to  the  cross?  It  seemed  to  Paul 
that  no  other  explanation  was  possible,  or  at  least  that  no 
other  was  adequate,  except  that  Christ's  death  was  for  the 
sins  of  men.  The  Jewish  sacrifices  suggested  a  ready  ex- 
planation, one  that  w^as  indubitable  in  the  mind  of  one 
trained  under  that  system:  Jesus  was  the  one  great  Offer- 
ing by  which  the  sins  of  mankind  were  expiated.  "He 
bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,"  as  prophets 
had  foretold,  as  Temple  sacrifices  had  prefigured. 

But  Paul's  personal  problem  does  not  concern  us  in  the 
least.  To  us  it  appears  natural,  not  abhorrent,  that  Jesus 
should  die.  Even  if  it  were  no  more  than  the  death  of 
any  martyr,  the  death  of  Jesus  rewrote  in  red  all  that  he 
had  ever  taught.  And  so  the  reasoning  of  Paul  does  not 
fit  our  case,  and  therefore  it  fails  to  convince.  Especially 
do  we  revolt  from  his  idea  of  sacrificial  expiation.  The 
whole  notion  of  appeasing  God  by  the  sacrifice  of  animals, 
the  entire  machinery  of  altars  and  priests  and  rivers  of 
blood,  has  not  a  point  of  contact  with  the  present  day  think- 
ing and  feeling.  The  moment  we  make  an  effort  of  imag- 
ination to  realize  what  it  really  was,  our  gorge  rises. 
Paul  appeals  to  a  state  of  mind  that  has  forever  passed 
away — at  least,  among  civilized  peoples,  though  his  the- 
ology may  still  be  helpful  to  African  savages. 

Sacrifices  are  a  fine  mixture  of  popular  superstition 
and  priestly  imposture.  Only  superstition  could  have 
made  so  many  nations  for  so  many  ages  imagine  that  the 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE   THEOLOGIAN  191 

slaughtering  of  animals  might  propitiate  a  divine  Being, 
or  remove  guilt  from  a  man.  And  only  priestly  imposture 
could  have  been  equal  to  persuading  men  of  all  races  and 
colors  for  so  many  generations  that  God  or  the  gods  had 
ever  commanded  men  to  offer  sacrifices.  (^)  Whenever 
and  wherever  men  have  achieved  a  stage  of  civilization 
that  enabled  them  to  think  rationally,  sacrificial  systems 
have  inevitably  withered  and  died.  Beginning  in  the  twi- 
light of  the  race,  they  could  not  bear  the  light  of  noon- 
day. They  were  too  physically  repulsive  and  too  intel- 
lectually crude  to  live  in  the  light.  The  whole  round  of 
Temple  services  in  the  days  of  Jesus  and  Paul  would  be 
unspeakably  shocking  to  the  twentieth  centur}^  Reader, 
did  you  ever  visit  a  slaughter-house?  Have  you  ever 
smelled  burning  meat  ?  A  God  would  be  a  strange  Being 
whose  eyes  were  pleased  with  such  sickening  sights,  or 
who  found  in  that  horrid,  nauseating  stench  a  "sweet 
savor."  The  whole  thing  is  so  stupidly  absurd  as  to  be 
unworthy  of  serious  refutation.  ^N'o  God  that  we  could 
possibly  love  and  worship  ever  devised  such  a  method  of 
approach  to  him  and  winning  liis  good  graces.  (") 

Paul's  idea  of  law,  of  penalty,  of  expiation,  offends  the 
modern  sense  of  justice  and  contradicts  our  ethical  values 
at  every  point  of  contact.  Without  caricature,  it  may  be 
compared  to  ideas  that  prevail  in  certain  police  circles 
to-day.  A  sensational  crime  is  committed;  the  public  is 
greatly  roused  and  demands  detection  and  punishment  of 

(^)  Judaism  was  better  than  the  pagan  faiths,  in  that  it  never 
countenanced  the  offering  of  human  beings  in  sacrifice.  Readers  of 
Montaigne  will  recall  an  instance  that  he  mentions:  "Amurath  at 
the  taking  of  Isthmus,  sacrificed  six  hundred  young  Grecians  to  his 
father's  soul:  to  the  end  their  blood  might  serve  as  a  propitiation  to 
exculpate  the  sins  of  the  deceased."     Essays,  bk.  T,  ch.  xxix. 

(-)  The  judicious  reader  will  observe  that  nothing  is  said  above 
that  is  not  fully  implied  by  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews: 
"For  it  is  impossible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should 
take  away  sins"'  (10:4).  The  injudicious  reader  will,  of  course, 
perceive  nothing  of  the  sort,  not  even  after  it  has  been  pointed  out 
to  him. 


192  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

the  criminal.  This  the  police  are  unable  to  accomplish, 
but  obviously  something  must  be  done  to  silence  public 
clamor;  so  they  ^^frame  up"  a  case  against  some  one  who 
can  most  plausibly  be  made  the  scapegoat.  He  is  con- 
victed by  perjury,  the  public  cry  is  silenced,  the  majesty 
of  the  law  has  been  vindicated,  justice  is  satisfied ! 

But  we  are  no  longer  content  with  that  brand  of  ^'jus- 
tice." We  insist  that  the  guilt  of  the  guilty  cannot  be 
expiated,  justice  cannot  be  satisfied,  by  the  punishment  of 
the  innocent.  Yet  our  theology  continues  to  teach  that 
the  Almighty  could  find  no  better  expedient  to  save  men 
than  to  ^'frame  up"  a  case  against  his  own  Son  and  put 
to  death  the  innocent  for  the  guilty.  And  that  which 
fills  us  with  horror  when  done  by  man  to  man,  we  praise 
and  glorify  when  done  by  God  to  God.  Does  the  orthodox 
Christian  ever  think  ? 

We  have  come  of  late  to  understand  that  there  are  many 
survivals  of  primitive  ideas  and  customs  in  Christian 
doctrine  and  institutions.  The  Pauline  teaching  regard- 
ing atonement  is  an  excellent  example.  He  inherited  his 
thought  from  Judaism,  where  it  is  a  palpable  survival  of 
the  clan  stage  of  Israel's  development,  when  the  clan  and 
the  family  were  the  social  units,  and  any  member  of  fam- 
ily or  clan,  or  the  whole  of  either,  might  be  held  responsible 
for  an  individual's  wrong  act  and  could  pay  the  penalty. 
Transference  of  penalty,  so  unthinkable  to  us,  was  then 
normal  and  usual.  Every  group  must  bear  the  sins  of  its 
members,  and  conversely  the  individuals  must  suifer  with 
and  for  the  group.  Ideas  persist  longer  than  institutions ; 
and  while,  in  modern  society,  group  responsibility  has 
given  way  in  law  to  individual  responsibility,  ideas  de- 
rived from  group  responsibility  are  still  potent  in  theology. 
We  find  it  difficult  to  persuade  ourselves  that  such  savage 
punishment  could  be  inflicted  on  an  entire  family  for  the 
sin  of  one  member,  as  the  story  of  Achan  describes,  and 
Ave  refuse  to  believe  that  God   had   anything  more  to  do 


PAUL  TIIK   SPKCULATIVE   THEOLOGIAN  193 

with  the  matter  than  he  had  with  the  slaughter  of  the 
citizens  of  Louvain  because  a  few  of  them  were  accused 
of  ^ ^sniping"  at  the  German  invaders.  The  notion  of 
transferred  or  substituted  penalty  cannot  be  adjusted  to 
our  present  social  status,  in  which  individual  rights  and 
individual  responsibilities  are  so  overemphasized  that  so- 
cial responsibilities  and  duties  are  little  felt  and  social 
sins  not  at  all.  Transference  of  penalty  cannot  happen 
to-day ;  not  only  so,  it  is  quite  inconceivable. 

Only  a  believer  in  universal  salvation  can  with  logical 
consistency,  hold  the  doctrine  of  penal  substitution.  If 
Christ  actually  has  borne  our  penalty,  then  God  cannot 
justly  hold  us  to  further  penalties  for  our  sins.  Therefore 
all  men  must  be  saved.  There  is  no  escape  from  the  con- 
clusion if  the  premise  be  maintained;  universalism  is  the 
rigorously  logical  deduction  from  the  substitutionary  the- 
ory of  Christ's  death. 

And  the  modern  ethical  sense  declares  that  sin  can  no 
more  be  expiated  than  transferred.  Expiation  of  sin  is 
impossible,  was  always  impossible,  unimaginable  even. 
Nobody  has  ever  been  able  to  show,  nobody  will  ever  be 
able  to  explain,  how  a  given  quantity  of  suffering  can 
equal  a  given  quantity  of  sin.  Neither  sin  nor  suffering 
can  be  measured  quantitatively,  and  if  each  could 
be  exactly  weighed  or  measured  or  computed  nobody 
can  show  how  one  can  be  the  equivalent  of  the  other.  The 
media-val  attempt  to  e>tii1^1ish  a  money  value  for  crime 
(WehrqeU),  was  not  more  irrational,  nor  was  the  sliding 
scale  for  indulgences  proclaimed  by  Tetzel  a  greater  scan- 
dal. Sin  cannot  be  escaped  by  expiation;  it  can  be  es- 
caped only  by  being  repented,  forsaken,  hated.  The 
consequences  of  sin  are  indelible ;  the  effect  of  an  evil  act 
cannot  be  undone,  even  by  divine  omnipotence.  Suffer- 
ing is  the  inescapable  consequence  of  sin,  penalty,  but  not 
punishment.  Society  only  evades  the  problem  of  moral 
evil  when  it  hangs  or  imprisons  a  wrong-doer;  the  only 


194  rUNDAMEKTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

solution  of  the  problem  is  to  remake  him  into  a  doer  of 
right.  God  cannot  dispose  of  sin  by  sending  the  sinner 
to  hell ;  God  must  make  the  sinner  righteous. 

Any  theory  of  atonement  is  impossible  that  does  not 
take  into  account  these  ethical  ideas  of  our  own  day.  So 
far  as  sin  is  conceived  as  a  personal  offense  against  God, 
his  forgiveness  may  also  be  conceived  as  removing  the 
barrier  that  sin  has  made  between  man  and  God.  But 
we  can  no  longer  receive  the  teaching  that  any  sort  of 
atonement  or  forgiveness  makes  it  possible  for  God  to 
relieve  man  of  the  other  effects  of  his  sin.  These  the 
sinner  must  bear,  and  others  must  bear  with  him ;  for,  as 
no  man  lives  to  himself,  so  no  man  sins  to  himself.  The 
worst  thing  about  moral  evil,  indeed,  is  not  its  effect  on 
the  individual  who  sins,  but  its  social  consequences.  Its 
effect  on  his  innocent  fellows  quite  outweighs  its  effect  on 
himself.  The  sooner  we  awake  to  the  fact  that  the  past 
is  unalterable  by  the  forgiveness  of  God,  the  better  for  our 
religious  life  and  the  better  for  the  prospect  of  greater 
reality  in  our  preaching.  Untold  mischief  has  been  done 
by  the  proclamation  from  ten  thousand  pulpits  that  re- 
pentance and  the  forgiveness  of  sins  wipes  out  all  the  con- 
sequences of  sin.  Hymns  like  CoAvper's  '^There  is  a 
fountain  filled  with  blood,''  have  led  thousands  into  a 
religious  fool's  paradise.  Far  truer  are  the  words  of 
Omar : 

The  Moving  Finger  writes;  and  having  writ 
Moves  on:  nor  all  thy  Piety  and  Wit 

Shall  lure  it  back  to  cancel  half  a  Line, 
Nor  all  thy  Tears  wash  out  a  Word  of  it. 

The  present  is  ours,  to  make  a  new  record;  the  past  is 
past.     Whoever  teaches  men  otherwise,  teaches  lies. 

It  is  often  made  a  reproach  to  ^'liberal"  Christians  that, 
in  denying  the  efficacy  of  blood-atonement  they  take  a  light 
and  inadequate  view  of  sin.  But  what  is  often  called  an 
inadequate  sense  of  sin  will  turn  out  on  examination  to 


PAUL  TJIE   SPECULATIVE    TIIEOLOCUAX  195 

be  merely  a  sense  of  different  sin — an  appreciation  of  the 
utter  inadequacy  of  an  idea  of  sin  that  confines  it  entirely 
to  wrong  relations  to  a  God  whom  one  has  not  seen,  w^ith 
a  bland  unconsciousness  of  sin  that  consists  in  wrong  re- 
lations to  the  brother  whom  one  has  seen.  And  as  for 
"light''  views  of  sin,  which  is  the  lighter,  that  which  in- 
sists the  sinner  must  forever  bear  the  burden  of  conse- 
quences that  accrue  from  his  evil,  or  that  which  says  he 
may  escape  the  consequences  utterly  by  a  bath  in  the 
"fountain  filled  with  blood"  ?  'No,  it  is  your  orthodox 
theologian  or  preacher  with  his  theory  of  blood-atonement 
who  takes  sin  too  lightly.  1 1  is  your  evangelist  who  ex- 
horts sinners  to  come  and  be  washed  white  in  the  blood 
of  the  Lamb,  who  takes  an  inadequate  view  of  sin.  God 
has  never  promised  to  w^hitewash  moral  evil  and  call  it 
good,  whatever  presumptuous  and  silly  men  may  have 
rashly  promised  in  his  name.  Poetic  phrases  of  prophets 
that  expressed  religious  emotion  have  been  made  into  sci- 
entific theological  definitions,  with  consequences  disastrous 
to  theology'  and  religion. 

But,  after  all,  the  great  untruth  of  the  vicarious  sacri- 
fice is  that  by  representing  the  crucifixion  of  the  Son  of 
God  as  "substitutionary,"  theology  has  excused  the  sons 
of  God  from  that  daily  dying  on  the  cross  which  Jesus 
declared  to  be  the  essence  of  discipleship. 


IV 

The  difference  between  Jesus  and  Paul  regarding  for- 
giveness of  sins  stands  out  clearly  when  we  consider  their 
terminology.  The  word  continually  on  the  lips  of  Jesus 
in  connection  with  sin  is  "forgive" — in  the  Greek  acpir^i^ii, 
which  means  to  send  away,  let  go,  disregard,  and  was 
used  in  classical  Greek  as  a  legal  term  to  denote  release 
from  contract,  debt,  or  indictment.     Paul  uses  the  same 


196  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

terminology  a  few  times,  (^)  thus  showing  that  the  idea 
of  remission  of  sins  was  not  unfamiliar  to  him.  But  if 
not  unfamiliar,  it  seems  to  have  been  unwelcome ;  he  pre- 
ferred something  quite  different.  The  verb  Sixaioo) 
which  Paul  uses  to  denote  man's  deliverance  from  sin  and 
guilt,  occurs  in  his  writings  27  times,  not  to  mention 
its  cog-nates,  5ixaia)oig  (3)  and  6ixaia)|ia  (5).  Law 
knows  no  forgiveness ;  law  either  convicts  of  sin  or  acquits 
of  g-uilt.  Jesus  uses  6ixai6a>  only  once  or  twice  in 
speaking  of  man's  relations  to  God,  and  then  apparently 
not  in  a  forensic  sense.  (^)  Forgiveness,  utter  and  final, 
not  acquittal  by  legal  fiction,  is  his  idea  of  God's  way  of 
dealing  with  the  sinner.  A  Father  may  forgive  the  guilty ; 
a  judge  must  either  convict  or  find  some  expedient  to 
acquit.  The  prayer  of  Jesus  on  the  cross,  "Father,  for- 
give them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do,"  can  find  no 
place  in  the  Pauline  theory  of  justification.  Law  can 
never  admit  ignorance  to  be  an  excuse  for  guilt  or  a  reason 
for  acquittal. 

The  same  distinction  follows  in  the  ideas  of  "righteous- 
ness" 8ixaio(Ti)vr]  the  status  of  being  "just"  in  tlie 
fight  of  God.  Jesus  everywhere,  but  especially  in  tlio 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  speaks  of  a  righteousness  that  is 
personal  and  essential,  a  real  righteousness  that  consists 
of  right  character  and  conduct.  His  idea  of  righteousness 
is  a  relation  of  reverence,  trust  and  love  to  a  Father  in 
Heaven,  which  cannot  but  express  itself  in  obedience.  "Be 
perfect,  as  your  Father  in  Heaven  is  perfect,"  is  an  ideal 
rather  than  a  law,  a  standard  but  not  a  statute.  Paul's 
"rigliteousness"  is  not  primarily  personal  and  essential, 
but  legal,  and  therefore  unreal;  it  is  a  fictitious  righteous- 
ness that  is  "reckoned"  to  us,  or  with  which  we  are 
"clotlied" — not  ours,  but  Christ's,  bestowed  on  us  by  a 
legal   fiction.     "Christ  lias  been  made   unto   us   wisdom 

(')    For  example,  Eph.  1:7;   Col.  1:14. 
(^)    Matt.    12:37. 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE  THEOLOGIAN  197 

from  God,  and  righteousness  and  sanctification  and  re- 
demption." (^) 

Jesus  teaches  the  insufficiency  of  mere  formal  obedience 
to  law,  such  as  the  Pharisees  rendered,  and  gives  a  new 
and  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  Decalogue — ''I  am  come 
not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil,"  fill  full,  complete.  He  holds 
up  to  men  a  higher  ethical  standard  than  they  had  known, 
and  then  holds  them  up  to  the  standard.  But  Paul  in- 
sists that  the  Law  was  not  intended  to  be  kept,  that  man 
is  unable  to  obey  it — the  Law  was  given  to  awaken  men's 
sense  of  sin,  to  teach  them  their  inability  to  obey,  and  so, 
like  a  tutor,  to  bring  them  to  Christ.  (^)  So,  while  Jesus 
insists  that  his  disciples  must  obey  the  Law,  in  a  right- 
eousness exceeding  that  of  Scribes  and  Pharisees, (^)  Paul 
sweeps  the  Law  altogether  away — Christ  has  abolished  it, 
nailed  it  to  the  cross,  and  made  a  sport  of  it.  (^)  There 
may  be  a  way  of  "reconciling"  these  differing  views  of 
the  Law,  but  their  likeness  is  not  striking. 

Paul  represents  the  process  of  salvation  as  wholly  of 
the  grace  of  God,  with  which  the  sinner  has  nothing  to 
do  but  either  to  accept  or  reject  it.  Jesus  represents  sal- 
vation as  the  result  of  man's  effort  together  with  God: 
"By  your  endurance  you  will  win  your  lives,"  i.  e.,  your 
true  lives,  eternal  Life.  Life  comes  from  God,  but  at- 
tainment of  Life  is  man's  work.  Eternal  Life  is  God's 
gift,  as  is  all  that  we  possess,  but  it  is  also  a  self-creation 
through  self -conquest. 

I   am  the  master  of  my  fate, 
I  am  the  captain  of  my  soul, 
is  not  a  pagan  sentiment,  as  has  sometimes  been  said,  but 
profoundly  Christian,  though  its  author  never  understood 
that  fact.     Posing  as  pure  pagan,  he  was  Christian  in  spite 
of  himself. 

~"H~1    Cor.    1:30. 

(  =  )   Gal.  3:24;  Rom.  7:7. 
{')   Matt.  5:20. 
(*)    Col.  2:14,  15. 


198  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

In  a  word,  Jesus  came,  not  to  satisfy  divine  justice  and 
confer  a  fictitious  righteousness,  but  to  save  sinners  by 
making  them  truly  righteous.  The  atonement  is  not  a 
legal,  but  a  vital  process.  God's  forgiveness  makes  the 
forgiven  heart  the  home  of  the  love  that  forgives;  it 
brings  with  it  the  promise  and  potency  of  a  new  life;  it 
regenerates.  Its  result  is  not  the  imputation  of  a  right- 
eousness that  does  not  really  exist,  but  the  impartation  of 
a  righteousness  that  comes  really  to  exist.  The  teaching 
of  Paul  is  not  false,  but  inadequate ;  it  does  not  represent 
the  ideas  of  God,  sin,  penalty,  forgiveness,  righteousness, 
at  their  highest,  as  Jesus  has  helped  us  to  apprehend 
them;  instead,  he  gives  us  older  and  less  perfect  ideas. 

Yet,  if  we  see  in  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
and  imputed  righteousness,  not  a  dogma  to  be  accepted 
in  the  precise  form  of  words  in  which  he  sets  it  forth, 
but  an  illustration  from  legal  principles  of  his  day  of  an 
eternal  principle,  we  shall  get  from  justification  by  faith 
and  its  imputation  of  righteousness  all  that  it  was  de- 
sigTied  to  convey.  To  do  this,  we  must  lay  the  emphasis 
on  the  faith,  rather  than  on  the  justification.  It  is  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  and  not  by  works  of  law,  as  Paul  so  vehem- 
ently insists,  because  works  are  a  product  of  spiritual  con- 
dition, not  its  cause.  Faith,  trust  in  Jesus  as  Deliverer, 
the  soul  committing  itself  to  him  as  Teacher  and  Master, 
marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  life  of  God  in  the  man. 
Henceforth  he  is  a  new  creation,  reborn  from  above,  to 
grow  in  the  grace  and  knowledge  of  God  through  the  power 
of  his  indwelling  Spirit.  Every  man  who  has  had  a  gen- 
uine Christian  experience  knows  exactly  what  this  means, 
but  to  one  who  lacks  that  experience  such  words  will  ever 
appear  foolishness. 

The  real  difficulty  in  Paul's  doctrine  of  a  forensic  jus- 
tification, that  depended  on  an  "imputed"  righteousness, 
was  not  felt  in  his  day  or  for  long  afterward,  but  is  very 
serious  to  us.     We  have  come  to  see  that  it  is  an  unworthy 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE   THEOLOGIAN  199 

idea  of  God  to  suppose  that  he  employs  a  mere  ''dodge'' 
to  save  men.  Our  idea  of  God  does  not  admit  of  his  deal- 
ing in  fictions.  God  is  not  merely  truthful,  he  is  Truth. 
No  artificial,  forensic  expedient  is  conceivable  in  the  do- 
main of  ethical  and  spiritual  relations.  If  God  declares 
a  man  just,  if  he  acquits  him  of  sin,  it  must  be  because 
the  man  is  just,  is  no  longer  guilty.  And  that  is  exactly 
what  forgiveness  means.  When  man  turns  from  sin  and 
God  forgives,  he  is  no  longer  guilty,  and  therefore  he  must 
be  acquitted.  God  judges  him  according  to  what  he  has 
become  and  is  henceforth  to  be,  not  according  to  what  he 
was.  It  is  not  legal  fiction;  it  is  ethical  fact.  But  when 
we  have  thus  evaluated  Paul's  forensic  illustration,  in  the 
light  of  our  highest  ethical  knowledge,  the  essential  thing 
in  justification  by  faith  remains :  There  is  such  a  thing  as 
trust  in  Jesus  the  Christ,  so  vital  and  compelling  that  it 
grips  a  man's  very  soul  and  makes  him  completely  over, 
reconstitutes  his  ideals  and  aims,  determines  anew  the 
whole  course  of  life,  and  puts  him  in  new  relation  with 
God. 


Next  to  the  teaching  of  the  unquestioned  Pauline  writ- 
ings, and  in  certain  respects  of  greater  weight  in  the  esti- 
mation of  some,  is  the  contribution  to  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  made  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  long  at- 
tributed to  Paul.  The  majority  of  scholars  now  believe 
that  this  is  certainly  not  Paul's  composition,  though  he  in 
large  part  furnished  its  ideas.  The  letter  is  avowedly  the 
work,  not  of  an  apostle,  or  even  an  original  disciple  of 
Jesus,  but  of  a  convert  who  has  received  his  knowledge  of 
Jesus  and  his  words  from  apostolic  sources. (^)  That 
would  quite  accurately  describe  Apollos,  whom  Luther  first 
guessed  to  have  been  the  actual  writer.  Wlioever  he  was, 
he  makes  no  claim  to  inspiration  or  apostolic  authority. 

(•)    Heb.   1:3. 


i^OO  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

The  so-called  ^^epistle"  is  not  a  letter  at  all,  but  a  homily, 
a  religious  essay  or  exhortation,  belonging  to  the  same 
class  of  early  Christian  writings  as  2  Clement. 

The  chief  characteristic  of  the  homily  is  the  author's 
attempt  to  establish  analogies  between  the  Jewish  system, 
the  details  of  which  he  seems  to  have  imperfectly  under- 
stood, and  the  new  religion  of  the  Christ.  ISTo  more  than 
Paul  did  he  comprehend  the  origin  and  nature  of  the 
Jewish  sacrificial  system.  It  was  not  his  fault  that  the 
science  of  comparative  religion  'did  not  then  exist,  and 
that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  correspondence  between  Juda- 
ism and  Oriental  paganism.  But,  waiving  this  funda- 
mental defect  in  the  homily,  a  careful  examination  of  it 
shows  that  there  has  been  widespread  misinterpretation 
of  it. 

The  idea  of  sacrifice  so  prominent  in  this  writing,  is 
not  expiation  or  propitiation,  but  purification  or  cleansing. 
This  is  made  clear  at  the  very  outset,  where  it  is  said  of 
the  Son  that,  ^'when  he  had  made  a  purification  for  sins, 
he  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high." 
This  is  the  controlling  thought  of  the  homily.  The  argu- 
ment is  twofold: 

First,  that  Jesus  performs  for  his  people  essentially 
the  same  ofiice  that  the  High  Priest  performed  for  the 
J  ews,  only  much  more  effectually ;  and  that  he  performed 
it  once  for  all,  so  that  it  does  not  need  to  be  repeated. 
That  office  was  to  put  away  sin,  which  was  accomplished 
in  symbol  by  the  High  Priest  going  on  the  day  of  Atone- 
ment into  the  Holy  of  Holies  and  sprinldino-  the  mercy- 
seat  with  blood.  Jesus,  by  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  has 
once  for  all  effected  the  purification,  sanctification,  cleans- 
ing, perfecting  (all  of  these  terms  are  employed  in  turn) 
of  all  that  trust  in  him.  Throughout  the  first  eight  chap- 
ters, Jesus  is  likened  to  the  High  Priest,  not  the  victim ; 
he  is  represented  as  making  the  sacrifice  of  purification, 
not  as  being  the  sacrifice. 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE   TI1]'X)L0GIAN  201 

Second,  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  chapters,  Jesus  is  also 
spoken  of  as  the  victim,  as  ^'being  offered,"  but  the  end 
of  the  offering  is  still  to  purify  his  people  from  their  sins. 
There  is  no  doctrine  of  expiation  or  vicarious  sacrifice 
anywhere  in  the  ^^epistle."(^) 

Hebrews  is  therefore  wholly  in  accord  with  the  view 
that  the  real  significance  of  the  death  of  Jesus  is  that  it 
completed  and  perfected  that  revelation  of  God's  char- 
acter as  the  loving  Father  of  all  men,  which  it  w^as  the 
chief  object  of  the  entire  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  to 
make  to  the  world.  It  is  most  untrue  to  say  that  if  the 
death  of  Christ  was  not  expiatory,  it  w^as  no  more  than 
the  death  of  any  martyr.  His  death  was  in  any  case  as 
much  greater  thfin  any  martyr's,  as  his  life  and  personal- 
ity were  greater  than  any  martyr's.  The  significance  of 
any  death  is  not  the  act  of  dying,  for  we  all  die,  but  in 
the  character  of  him  who  dies.  The  most  orthodox  the- 
ologian is  compelled  to  stress  that,  and  to  regard  the  ex- 
piatory value  of  Christ's  death  as  resting  on  his  Person, 
not  on  the  mere  fact  of  his  death.  If  we  deny  expiatory 
value  to  the  death  of  Christ,  the  significance  of  his  Person 
remains,  unaffected  by  any  theory  of  atonement. 

Some  sort  of  death  was  an  inseparable  part  of  the  hu- 
man life  of  the  Son  of  God.  Without  experiencing  death, 
lio  could  not  have  been  a  full  man.  Without  death,  the 
Captain  of  our  salvation  could  not  have  been  "made  per- 
fect through  suffering."  The  particular  death  of  Jesus 
on  the  cross  was  the  natural  effect  and  culmination  of  his 
prophetic  labors,  Judaea  being  what  it  was  in  his  day. 
He  could  not  be  faithful  to  his  mission  and  fail  so  to  die. 
Xot  his  death  of  the  cross  per  se,  therefore,  but  his  death 
in  obedience  to  his  Father's  will,  and  in  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  mission  of  revealing  God  to  men  and  so  recon- 
ciling men  to  God,  is  the  significant  thing.  Jesus  died 
for  the  world  in  the  same  sense  that  he  lived  and  taught 

n   Heb.   9:13,    14,   22,   26;    10:10,    14. 


-02  FUXDxilMEJN'TALS  OF  CHEISTIAXITY 

for  the  world.  His  whole  life  was  a  sacrifice,  an  offering 
to  his  Father  of  a  lowly  and  obedient  heart,  not  his  death 
merely. 

It  has  already  been  asserted  that  no  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment can  be  deduced  from  the  words  of  Jesus,  without 
doing  inexcusable  violence  to  them.  It  should  be  added 
that  this  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  inference  that 
no  doctrine  of  atonement  is  possible  or  true.  The  thesis 
cannot  possibly  be  maintained  that  Jesus  taught  all  truth, 
and  that  nothing  is  to  be  accepted  as  true  in  the  sphere 
of  religion,  if  it  cannot  be  found  in  his  words.  The  thesis 
that  can  be  maintained  is,  that  Jesus  taught  all  that  is 
fundamental  in  religious  truth,  and  therefore  no  doctrine 
can  be  accepted  as  true  that  is  irreconcilable  with  his 
teaching.  His  promise  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  to  lead  his 
disciples  into  all  the  truth,  warrants  us  in  hoping  and  be- 
lieving that  continual  progTcss  in  apprehension  of  truth 
is  possible  to  us.  But  no  later  development  of  Christian 
ideas  can  set  aside  positive  teaching  of  Jesus.  Whatever 
contradicts  Jesus  is  not  a  further  increment  of  truth,  but 
an  increment  of  error. 

Consequently,  whatever  ideas  of  atonement  we  hold, 
they  must,  to  be  worthy  of  even  provisional  acceptance  as 
truth,  be  in  full  accord  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus:  that 
God  freely  forgives  men  their  sins  on  condition  of  re- 
pentance solely;  that  he  forgives  men  their  sins,  because 
he  loves  us  as  a  Father.  And  furthermore,  the  main  fea- 
ture of  a  doctrine  of  atonement  should  be  its  capacity  and 
tendency  to  promote  that  repentance,  or  change  of  attitude 
toward  God  and  man,  which  alone  procures  the  divine  for- 
giveness. (^) 

(')  "The  first  question  to  ask  concerninjj^  any  dogma  of  the 
Church  is  not  whether  it  conforms,  or  does  not  conform,  to  orthodox 
standards,  but  whether  it  serves  to  reveal  or  obscure  the  Figure 
of  the  Living  Christ.  For  thousands  of  willing  souls  Christ  lies 
buried  in  a  gravp.  of  theological  subtleties.  It  is  for  us  to  roll 
away  the  stones,  not  u>  dispute  about  the  inscriptions  upon  them." 
E.  Herman,   "Christianity  in  the  New  Age,"  p.   180.     N.   Y.,   1919. 


PAUL  THE  SPECULATIVE  THEOLOGIAN       ^Uo 

VI 

Jesus  taugiit,  tlieu,  that  the  way  of  deliverance  is  bv 
repentance,  change  of  attitude  toward  God.  God  forgives 
the  sinner  because  he  is  God,  our  Father.  Jesus  nowhere 
claims  that  he  procures  from  God  forgiveness  of  sins  for 
man ;  he  makes  know^n  to  man  God's  love  and  consequent 
willingness  to  forgive  sins.  Paul  taught  that  deliverance 
is  by  way  of  propitiation  and  expiation:  God  forgives 
l)ecause  his  Son  has  made  a  sacrifice  for  man,  and  by  trust 
in  that  sacrifice  the  sinner  is  ''justified."  Are  these  two 
forms  of  teaching  so  mutually  incompatible  that  if  we 
choose  one  we  must  reject  the  other? 

Not  if  we  understand  neither  as  giving  us,  or  attempting 
to  give  us,  a  scientific  definition  of  God's  forgiveness  of 
sins.  Xot  if  we  understand  both  Jesus  and  Paul  to  be 
illustrating  the  character  of  God  and  his  forgiveness 
through  human  relations,  l^ot  if  we  concede  that  all 
illustrations  are  not  the  truth,  but  the  clothes  of  truth. 
Illustrations  can  give  us  only  glimpses  of  underlying  real- 
ity, helpful  but  not  exhaustive.  I^one  separately,  nor  all 
together,  can  tell  us  the  whole  truth  about  God  and  his 
relation  to  men.  Viewed  as  scientific  definitions,  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  and  Paul  cannot  be  reconciled;  viewed 
as  illustrations,  each  may  be  regarded  as  exhibiting  part 
of  the  truth. 

^Nevertheless,  it  seems  to  be  open  to  us  to  say  that  one 
illustration  discloses  more  of  God's  nature  than  another, 
that  one  conveys  a  better  idea  of  the  essential  truth  than 
another,  that  one  conforms  better  than  another  to  the 
ethics  of  to-day,  that  one  is  drawn  from  dead  institutions 
while  another  is  in  accord  with  living  experiences.  So 
that  the  antithesis  between  Jesus  and  Paul  is  not  neces- 
sarily that  between  absolute  truth  and  absolute  error,  but 
that  between  higher  truth  and  lower,  between  better  meth- 
ods of  setting  forth  the  character  of  God  and  his  dealings 
with  us  and  inferior  methods.     Will  religion  lose  any- 


204  FUK^BAMENTALS  OF  CHElSTlATs^lTY 

tiling,  will  even  theology  be  seriously  damaged,  by  admis- 
sion that  Jesus  understood  God  better  than  Paul  ?  Shall 
we  fear  to  say  that  the  relation  of  Fatherhood  helps  our 
age  to  understand  God  better  than  the  relation  of  Judge  ? 

Truth — meaning  our  apprehension  of  truth — is  relative 
not  absolute,  dynamic  not  static,  progressive  not  final. 
Paul's  teachings  about  justification  and  atonement  were 
finer  and  higher  ideas  of  God  and  his  relations  to  men 
than  had  been  previously  known  to  those  who  first  read 
his  letters.  They  continued  to  be  helpful  ideas  for  many 
generations.  We  are  fortunate  enough  now  to  have  at- 
tained still  better  ideas,  chiefly  through  fuller  comprehen- 
sion of  what  Jesus  taught.  Must  Paul,  once  an  inspira- 
tion to  Christian  thought,  henceforth  be  an  incubus,  be- 
cause we  insist  on  valuing  the  form  of  his  teaching  more 
highly  than  the  substance  ? 

The  essential  content  of  PauFs  doctrine  of  atonement, 
apart  from  the  form  in  which  it  is  conveyed,  is  capable 
of  restatement  in  terms  of  individual  ethical  responsibility, 
to  which  the  world  has  now  advanced.  The  difiiculty  is 
more  than  half  eliminated  the  moment  we  assent  to  the 
proposition  that  Paul  does  not  give  us  rigid  and  precise 
scientific  formulae,  that  he  is  not  a  systematic  theologian 
in  the  sense  that  Augustine  and  Thomas  Aquinas  were 
such.  We  shall  then  attach  no  more  than  their  proper 
meaning  to  words  like  ^'propitiation,''  ^'redemption,"  "jus- 
tification" and  the  like.  Regarding  such  terms  as  fluid, 
not  rigid,  without  doing  them  violence  we  can  reach  an 
interpretation  that  will  accord  with  modern  ethical  ideas. 
For  example,  when  the  apostle  says  that  the  death  of  Jesus 
was  to  establish  the  righteousness  of  God  (not  his  justice, 
as  Paul's  interpreters  say),  did  he  necessarily  mean  any- 
thing more  than  this :  that  the  death  of  Jesus  was  tlie  su- 
preme act  of  obedience  in  a  life  wholly  ruled  by  tlio  will 
of  his  Father  ? 

So  interpreted,  the  sacrificial  or  expiatory  eiemeut  in 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE    THEOLOGIAN  205 

Paul's  atonement  teaching  is  not  fundamental,  but  the 
vicarious.  And  this  Jesus  teaches  as  clearly  as  Paul.  He 
could  not  do  less  and  be  a  teacher  of  truth.  The  father 
of  the  Prodigal  suffered  with  and  for  his  wayward  son. 
In  all  human  forgiveness  there  is  an  element  of  self- 
sacrifice,  which  justifies  the  numerous  sayings  to  the  effect 
that  Jesus  bore  the  sins  of  men  and  gave  himself  in  their 
behalf.  The  error  has  been  in  pouring  the  emotional  and 
highly  figiirative  language  of  prophets  and  poets  into  the 
mould  of  hard,  precise  theologic  definition. 

Vicarious  suffering  cannot  be  questioned.  It  runs  all 
through  life.  Everywhere  the  innocent  suffers  for  the 
guilty,  not  as  his  substitute,  but  as  his  partner.  This  is 
the  price  that  men  pay  for  the  great  blessings  of  family 
and  social  relations.  A  man  can  no  more  escape  suffering 
from  the  sins  of  others  than  he  can  prevent  their  suffering 
for  his  sins.  This  is  the  meaning  of  brotherhood,  the 
indelible  truth  of  the  old  clan  ethics:  we  are  one  race, 
and  the  sins  of  each  are  the  sins  of  all.  By  sharing  our 
humanity,  the  Son  of  God  obligated  himself  to  bear  our 
griefs  and  sorrows.  The  solidarity  of  the  race  compels 
such  suffering,  and  Jesus  could  not  have  escaped  if  he 
would.  By  so  much  as  his  office  as  Messiah  and  Deliverer 
set  him  above  other  men,  by  so  much  was  his  burden  of 
the  sins  and  sorrows  of  mankind  increased. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  Jesus  bore  the  sins  of  the 
w^orld  in  a  sense  unique  and  to  a  degree  unexampled. 
Partaker  of  our  nature,  he  was  not  actual  partaker  of  our 
sins,  yet  he  bore  them.  He  bore  our  sins  as  a  hater  of 
sin  and  a  lover  of  men — sin  offended  his  moral  purity,  it 
debased  those  dear  to  him.  He  bore  our  sin  as  one  who 
tries  to  put  it  away,  to  destroy  it.  He  did  this  as  our 
fellowman;  ho  did  it  as  the  Man  in  whom  God  dwelt 
most  richly  of  all  men,  so  that  he  became  an  expression  of 
God  and  what  God  did  he  did  through  him.  This  was 
^'the  joy  set  before  hini"  that  enabled  him  to  endure  the 


206  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  ClIEISTIANITY 

cross,  despising  sbame:  tlie  noble  gladness  of  Imowing 
that  his  endurance  of  sin  was  the  deliverance  of  others. 
His  suffering  was  truly  redemptive,  because  in  all  the  ages 
it  has  led  men  to  forsake  evil  and  seek  the  noble  life  and 
the  true.  The  voluntary  suffering  of  love  that  we  see  in 
him  makes  all  other  suffering  for  sin  appear  poor  and 
small. 

How  can  the  innocent  suffer  the  penalty  of  others'  guilt  ? 
Because  of  his  purity  of  soul  Jesus  must  have  lived  under 
the  most  powerful  consciousness  of  the  nature  of  moral 
wrong  and  its  effects  on  life  and  character.  In  that  was 
a  far  more  acute  suffering  than  the  mere  consciousness  of 
personal  ill  desert  could  have  caused.  He  bore  our  sins, 
therefore,  because  he  lived  under  the  crushing  weight  of 
the  world's  sinfulness,  took  upon  his  soul  the  burden  of 
all  human  souls.  His  life  and  death  were  a  solemn  tes- 
timony, out  of  the  depths  of  this  bitter  experience,  to  the 
hatefulness  of  everything  evil;  and  equally  solemn  testi- 
mony to  the  excellence  of  all  the  good.  It  was  a  vindica- 
tion of  the  divine  character,  of  the  divine  standards  of 
conduct.  And  that  he,  in  whom  God  visibly  dwelt,  should 
undergo  this  experience,  was  the  highest  possible  testimony 
to  God's  love  for  a  lost  world. 

^^God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself." 
In  these  words  Paul  has  given  us  his  highest  conception  of 
atonement.  Other  attempts  to  explain  are  on  a  distinctly 
lower  ethical  plane.  Indeed  we  should  do  well  to  banish 
the  word  ^^atonement"  from  religious  literature  altogether, 
and  use  instead  the  word  "reconciliation,"  which  is  both 
more  Scriptural  and  more  rational.  It  may  be  granted 
that  there  is  no  single,  uniform  explanation  of  the  work 
of  Christ  in  the  'New  Testament,  or  even  in  the  writings 
of  Paul.  There  has  already  been  too  much  "systematiz- 
ing," that  has  been  the  root  of  many  evils.  Still,  "recon- 
ciliation" is  the  best  word,  if  not  the  exclusive  word,  to 
describe  our  loftiest  ideal  of  Christ's  work.     Eecoucilia- 


PAUL  THE   SPECULATIVE   TIIEOLOGL^X 


207 


tion  is  the  bringing  of  God  and  men  into  moral  unity  and 
mutual  fellowship.  It  is  not  a  doctrine,  but  a  fact  of 
history  and  experience,  that  Jesus  in  his  death  has  been 
the  supreme  means  of  reconciling  men  to  God.  All  schools 
of  theology  will  grant  that.  What  they  differ  about  is 
the  process  by  which  reconciliation  has  been  accomplished. 
It  is  matter  of  comparative  indifference  how  reconciliation 
is  accounted  for,  provided  we  hold  fast  to  the  fundamental 
thing:  this  is  not  primarily  a  question  of  law  and  govern- 
ment, but  of  relation  between  persons. 

One  other  word  that  Paul  uses  has  been  seriously  mis- 
interpreted, '^propitiation.''  This  has  almost  uniformly 
been  seized  upon  and  employed  by  theologians  to  support 
their  ideas  of  sacriiice  and  substitution,  which  w^e  have 
seen  to  be  ethically  untenable.  In  this  they  have  done 
injustice  to  Paul.  True,  in  the  spoken  Greek  of  apostolic 
times,  it  was  not  uncommon  to  describe  propitiatory  gifts 
to  the  gods  asUaatriQia  (\)  and  Paul  may  have  been 
acquainted  with  this  usage  of  the  word.  But  he  was  cer- 
tainly much  better  acquainted  with  its  use  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  where  it  invariably (^)  denotes  the  happoreth,  or 
cover  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  of 
the  Tabernacle.  Here,  between  the  wings  of  the  cherubim, 
was  the  sliehhuiJi,  the  radiance  or  glory  of  Jehovah,  visible 
symbol  of  his  presence  with  his  people  and  his  willingness 
to  forgive  sins.  Since  the  time  of  Tyndale,  the  term 
^ ^mercy-seat"  has  been  found  in  all  English  versions  as  the 
equivalent  of  UaaxriQiov.  Paul(^)  and  the  letter  to 
the  Hebre\vs('*)  use  tliis  word  metaphorically  of  Jesus. 
It  is  inconceivable  that  they  should  have  had  in  mind  the 
lieathen  sense  of  it,  rather  than  the  thought  it  would  in- 
stantly suggest  to  every  Jew.  ^N'o,  they  intended  to  say 
of  Jesus  that  he  is  our  ^^mercy-seat,"  the  meeting-place  of 

(M  DeissTTiann,   Biblical   Studies,   p.    131. 

(^)  Ex.    25:17,    22;    20:34:    40:20:    T.or.    10:2.    13:    Xum.    7:80. 

[■)  Rom.  3:2.'). 

(M  TTfb.  0:.5:  2:17. 


208  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

God  and  man,  the  visible  symbol  of  God's  presence  with 
his  people  and  the  surety  of  the  divine  forgiveness. (^)  In 
this  sense,  the  only  interpretation  that  accords  with  proba- 
bility, the  word  is  fully  in  accord  with  the  ideal  of  recon- 
ciliation, and  certainly  suggests  nothing  of  sacrifice  or 
expiation  or  substitution.  (^) 

C)  The  kindred  word  Uaai^oc;,  found  in  1  John  2:2,  4:10,  will 
bear  the  same  interpretation  without  violence. 

(^)  For  a  full  conspectus  of  the  Scripture  passages  relating  to 
atonement,  see  Appendix. 


CHAPTEK  X 
WHAT  THElSr  IS  CHEISTIANITY  ? 


What  is  Christianity?  Is  it  chiefly  a  life  or  chiefly 
an  institution?  Is  Christianity  the  Church,  historic, 
present  or  possible  ? 

According  to  Jesus,  Christianity  is  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  He  cherished  a  social  ideal,  a  vision  of  a  recon- 
structed world,  a  new  human  society,  composed  of  regen- 
erated men,  a  society  of  which  good  will  to  others,  mutual 
service  and  helpfulness,  was  to  be  the  law.  To  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Kingdom  was  to  undertake  the  Great  Adventure 
of  the  spirit,  which  may  involve  much  privation  and  pain, 
but  leads  to  the  heights  of  achievement  and  blessedness. 
The  teaching  of  Jesus  affords  no  hint  of  purpose  to  estab- 
lish an  organization,  though  he  must  have  known  (since 
any  man  of  good  sense  w^ould  know  it)  that  something  of 
the  sort  would  almost  certainly  grow  out  of  his  teaching. 
Indeed,  he  must  have  been  sensible  that  without  organized 
])ropaganda  liis  words  would  be  evanescent,  and  his  influ- 
ence as  a  teacher  would  prove  no  more  than  a  ripple  on 
the  world's  life.  Yet  he  seemed  utterly  careless  about 
organization ;  his  to  supply  the  spirit,  others  might  provide 
the  body,  of  his  new  society. 

Paul  occasionally  mentions  the  Kingdom,  but  only  oc- 
casionally and  only  mentions.  He  does  not  use  the  word 
in  the  gospel  sense,  but  rather  as  something  pertaining  to 
the  future  life.  Even  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  ideal  of 
Jesus   has  visibly   faded   from   the  consciousness  of  bis 

209 


210  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

disciple.  Paul's  idea  of  the  "gospel/'  as  we  have  seen, 
is  not  the  immediate  coming  of  the  Kingdom,  but  a  Mes- 
sage of  forgiveness  of  sins  through  the  death  of  the  Christ, 
in  consequence  of  which  one  is  admitted  to  the  heavenly 
Kingdom.  And  in  Paul's  mind  organization  is  a  most 
important  thing.  He  spent  his  life  in  founding  and  ex- 
tending the  ecclesia,  local  organizations  of  believers  in 
Jesus  after  the  model  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  the  chief 
function  of  which  was  to  make  known  everywhere  the 
Message  he  had  delivered  to  them.  So  great  importance 
did  these  groups  assume  in  his  eyes,  that  he  declared  that 
Christ  died  for  the  ecclesia,  that  the  ecclesia  was  the  body 
of  Christ,  the  Temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  rapid  transformation  of  the  '^faith"  of  Jesus  into 
the  Faith,  from  a  spirit  and  life  into  a  creed,  a  cult  and 
a  Church,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  fruitful  of 
all  historical  studies ;  but  this  is  not  the  place  for  even  a 
brief  outline  of  it.  What  we  are  just  now  interested  to 
note  is,  that  during  the  first  stages  of  the  transformation 
the  continued  influence  of  Jesus  is  indicated  by  the  earli- 
est and  most  persistent  name  for  his  religion,  '^the  Way." 
By  this  name,  the  Church  testified  in  word,  even  while 
denying  it  in  deed,  that  the  chief  legacy  of  Jesus  to  the 
world  was  an  ideal  of  life.  And,  however  much  overlaid 
by  tradition  and  ritual,  this  truth  has  never  been  quite 
lost.  ^'Throughout  the  whole  history  of  the  Church,"  says 
Weizsiicker  very  justly,  ''the  imitation  of  Jesus,  and  the 
contemplation  of  the  whole  personality  of  that  sincere  and 
living  human  soul,  has  represented  a  distinct  stream,  a 
distinct  form  of  Christianity,  of  peculiar  simplicity  and 
force,  which  holds  the  balance  against  the  Pauline 
form."(\) 

The  colossal  hypocrisy  of  embattled  nations  praying  to 
the  same  God  for  power  to  kill  each  other  has  dealt  the 
finishing  blow  to  men's  faith  in  the  historic  Christianity, 

(')   "The  Apostolic  Age,"  1:173. 


21i 


the  religion  embodied  in  institutions.  If  Christianity  can- 
not be  reinterpreted,  if  it  cannot  be  reembodied,  if  it 
cannot  be  made  to  mean  something  it  has  never  meant 
since  apostolic  times,  it  is  doomed.  The  Church  to-day 
is  not  an  agent  for  establishing  the  Kingdom,  but  a  com- 
petitor of  the  Kingdom.  The  first  task  of  the  Church — 
of  any  church — is  to  increase  its  o^vn  numbers,  property, 
income  and  influence  in  its  community.  The  success  of 
any  minister,  of  whatever  badge  or  title,  is  measured  by 
his  efficiency  in  accomplishing  this  specific  task.  His  one 
duty  is  ^^to  build  up  the  Church,"  and  woe  to  him  if  he 
fails.     He  is  the  slave  of  institutionalism. 

The  new  Christianity  that  we  must  have,  if  we  are  to 
have  any,  is  simply  a  renew^al  of  the  Christianity  of  Jesus, 
so  long  overlaid  by  tradition  as  to  be  lost  sight  of,  so  long 
denied  by  the  official  teachers  of  religion  as  to  become  for- 
gotten. In  its  zeal  for  things,  historic  Christianity  has 
ignored  men.  And  so  far  as  it  has  concerned  itself  with 
men,  it  has  held  up  to  them  a  wrong  ideal.  Its  concep- 
tion of  Christian  character  has  long  been  mainly  a  series 
of  negatives — a  notion  that  w^as  put  into  a  quaint  phrase 
by  a  late  popular  ^^evangelist,"  who  described  being  a 
Christian  as  equivalent  to  ^'quit  your  meanness,"  give  up 
your  vicious  practices  and  stop  neglecting  your  business. 

And  so  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  Church  is  giving 
to  the  world  a  distorted,  inadequate,  and  therefore  false, 
interpretation  of  Christianity.  It  is  laying  emphasis  on 
the  unessential  things,  the  negative  virtues,  and  slurring 
over  the  essential  and  positive,  until  the  world  no  longer 
connects  the  essentials  specifically  with  Christianity.  Men 
who  are  learning  to  esteem  unselfishness,  generosity,  help- 
fulness, as  the  great  and  fine  things  of  life,  do  not  com- 
monly tliink  of  these  as  Christian  virtues.  In  their  view 
a  Christian  is  a  man  who  does  not  gamble  or  drink  or 
swear  or  smoke  or  run  after  women,  and  especially  one 


212  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHEISTIANITY 

who  carefully  shuns  the  company  of  men  who  do  these 
things,  and  cultivates  a  spirit  of  self-righteousness  in  con- 
sequence. That  to  be  a  Christian  is  something  much  finer 
and  manlier  than  abstinence  from  personal  vices  ('^these 
ought  ye  to  have  done  and  not  to  leave  the  other  undone"), 
the  m.an  of  the  world  has  no  idea  whatever,  and  the  ^^Chris- 
tian" himself  has  little. 

But  the  Church  has  often  shown  a  marvellous  power  of 
recuperation.  There  have  been  times  many  before  ours, 
when  it  seemed  in  the  last  agonies  of  dissolution,  and  it 
has  nevertheless  awakened  to  new  life,  much  to  the  dis- 
comfiture of  its  foes  and  to  the  great  delight  of  its  friends. 
It  may  be  that  such  an  awakening  of  historic  Christianity, 
such  a  refashioning  of  its  institutions,  is  at  hand.  But 
nothing  short  of  entire  revolution  in  its  ideals  and  meth- 
ods, full  recovery  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  will  suffice.  The 
Church  must  cease  to  be  merely  ameliorative  and  become 
regenerative.  TTndoubtedly  there  is  a  vast  amount  of  hu- 
man misery  that,  since  it  cannot  be  immediately  cured, 
should  be  relieved;  but  this  should  be  a  mere  by-product 
of  Christianity,  not  its  chief  aim.  If  Jesus  can  do  no 
more  than 

make  a  dying  bed 
Feel  soft  as  downy  pillows  are, 

he  is  out  of  date.  It  is  help  in  life,  not  death,  for  which 
the  hard  beset  man  of  to-day  is  looking  and  longing;  and 
no  religion  that  does  not  offer  this  has  the  slightest  chance 
of  acceptance  with  him.  It  is  because  Jesus  is  still  in 
the  world,  as  an  energizing,  creative  Spirit,  and  because 
he  can  give  help  to  struggling,  despairing  men,  as  no  one 
else  ever  has  given  or  can  give,  that  there  is  still  hope  for 
Christianity.  Let  us  who  know  of  this  power  tell  the 
world  about  it,  and  a  new  Christianity  will  be  born  out  of 
men's  new  experience. 


WHAT   THEl^   IS    CHRISTIANITY?  213 

II 

What  is  Christianity?  Is  it  a  form  of  worship,  or  a 
form  of  sound  words,  or  a  form  of  polity,  or  a  form  of 
ministering  the  sacraments  ?  If  it  is  none  of  these  things, 
but  the  negation  of  forms,  a  thing  of  the  spirit  and  not 
of  the  letter,  where  shall  we  look  for  Christianity  to-day  ? 
Is  it  not  true  that  those  who  '^profess  and  call  themselves 
Christians"  are  concerning  themselves  mainly  with  forms  ? 
It  will  do  the  reader  good  to  answer  these  questions  for 
himself,  and  he  will  be  wise  to  think  awhile  before  he 
speaks.  The  world  is  answering  them  now,  and  if  men 
must  choose  between  the  dryness  and  anarchism  that  goes 
by  the  name  of  Protestantism  and  the  paralyzing  spiritual 
despotism  called  Catholicism,  they  will  assuredly  choose — 
neither ! 

That  religion  is  an  affair  of  the  spirit  is  quite  emphati- 
cally and  unanimously  affirmed  by  Christian  teachers,  how- 
ever their  practice  may  contradict  their  words.  Thus 
they  bear  testimony  to  the  truth  that  the  power  of  Chris- 
tianity lies  in  its  capacity  of  development  and  recupera- 
tion— a  power  shown  no  less  strikingly  in  its  institutions 
than  in  individual  lives.  In  other  words,  Christianity  is 
and  always  has  been  what  it  was  first  proclaimed  to  be,  a 
way  of  life,  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  But  de- 
liverance of  a  soul  is  not  a  mechanical  thing;  it  is  a  spir- 
itual process  that  cannot  be  accomplished  by  sacrifices  or 
sacraments.  It  is  quite  in  accord  with  human  indolence 
that  men  should  look  for  a  salvation  to  be  accomplished  in 
something  done  for  them.  Tt  is  very  sweet — for  some — 
to  sing: 

N'othing  either  o-roat  or  small 
Remains  for  me  to  do; 

Jesus  died  and  paid  it  all, 
All  the  debt  I  owe. 

But  what  if  the  theology  of  this  is  as  poor  as  the  poetry? 
What  if  there  never  was  any  ^^debt"  and  Jesus  has  there- 


214  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

fore  "paid"  nothing?  What  if  everything  remains  for 
us  to  do?  "But  salvation  is  the  gift  of  God;  the  Scrip- 
tures say  so ;  and  we  have  but  to  stretch  out  hands  of  faith 
and  receive."  The  premise  is  correct;  the  Scriptures  "say 
so" ;  yet  the  conclusion,  while  it  appears  to  be  logical,  is 
really  a  no7i  sequitur.  Salvation  is  as  much  a  gift  of  God 
as  daily  bread,  but  on  the  same  condition :  man  must  work 
for  it.  The  ideal  of  Jesus  is  a  salvation  accomplished  by 
men,  not  for  them,  from  within,  not  from  without.  Jesus 
does  not  deny  God's  grace;  he  tells  us  how  God's  grace 
acts.  God  inspires  the  desire  for  deliverance,  God  sup- 
plies the  power,  but  the  work  must  be  done  by  the  saved 
man  in  his  own  soul,  or  he  is  never  saved.  Any  other 
deliverance  of  a  free  moral  agent  is  inconceivable.  Man 
must  be  the  captain  of  his  o\yd.  soul ;  God  has  so  made 
him :  his  final  orders  must  come  from  himself. 

In  all  our  theology,  our  philosophizing  about  religion, 
we  must  keep  close  to  the  facts  of  experience  to  ensure 
validity  to  our  results.  Only  the  assured  facts  of  the 
Christian  life  can  impart  this  element  of  reality  to  our 
thinking.  "The  deepest  and  most  precious  faith,"  says  a 
recent  writer,  "the  faith  none  can  afford  to  lose,  is  the 
faith  that  to  discover  the  truth  about  reality  and  to  follow 
this  truth  loyally,  will  in  the  end  lead  to  the  highest  good. 
To  live  by  error  or  illusion  is  costly." (^)  Our  deepest 
conviction  should  be  that  it  is  best  for  us  to  know  the 
truth  and  adjust  to  it  our  thinking,  our  conduct  and  our 
hope.  And  so,  as  religious  experience  has  developed,  as 
it  has  advanced,  as  it  has  become  richer,  more  complex, 
as  through  it  we  are  ever  more  approximating  the  ulti- 
mate spiritual  reality,  theology  has  been  continually 
changing.  This  is  a  necessity  of  the  case,  nothing  less 
than  a  spiritual  law.  The  greatest  error  of  historic  Chris- 
tianity, an  error  so  grave  in  results  as  to  be  both  tragic 
and  pathetic,  has  been  its  agelong  effort  to  substitute  for 

n~W.  G.  Everett,  "Moral  Values,"  p.  420.     N.  Y.  1918. 


WHAT   THEN   IS   CHRISTIANITY?  215 

tlie  ever  ripening  expression  of  the  inner  life  of  Chris- 
tians of  all  ages  the  Christian  experience  of  a  single  age, 
as  an  unchanging,  authoritative,  infallible  norm  of  the 
Christian  life  for  all  time  to  come.  Instead  of  something 
dynamic,  the  attempt  has  been  to  make  theology  static. 
The  bane  of  religion  is  the  dogmatist's  search  for  author- 
ity, and  his  insistence  that  he  has  found  authority  where 
none  exists.  For,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word,  there 
is  no  authority  in  religion,  nothing  fixed,  unalterable,  in- 
fallible; because  religion  is  life,  and  life  is  growth,  and 
growth  is  change. 

Therefore  theology  ought  to  be  no  bed  of  Procrustes,  on 
which  we  place  this  iSTew  Testament  document  and  that 
religious  experience,  chopping  off  a  bit  here,  stretching 
out  a  bit  there,  until  everything  fits  exactly  into  our  pre- 
ordained ''system.''  That  too  nearly  describes  the  method 
of  all  theology  of  the  past,  but  such  will  not  be  the  method 
of  the  future.  A  too  ingenious  exegesis,  w^arranted  to 
make  all  parts  of  the  Bible  agree  to  a  hair's  breadth,  is 
impossible  to  reconcile  with  the  profession  that  these 
words  are  Holy  Writ,  and  therefore  demand  from  us  espe- 
cially honest  handling.  A  scientific  exegesis  will  not  press 
the  word  of  one  writer  into  artificial  agreement  with  an- 
other, nor  evacuate  one  part  of  all  real  meaning  to  ''har- 
monize" it  with  something  else,  nor  read  into  the  text 
ideas  that  could  never  have  entered  the  minds  of  the 
writers,  in  the  vain  hope  of  making  all  say  the  same  things. 

After  all,  the  question  comes  to  this:  Is  there  any  sound 
foundation  for  religion  in  the  facts  of  life,  interpreted 
according  to  our  progressive  knowledge  of  man  and  the 
world  ?  Or  is  religion,  as  many  to-day  are  telling  us, 
nothing  more  than  a  synthesis  of  the  dreams  of  enthusiasts 
and  the  babble  of  theologians?  The  sound  conclusion 
seems  to  be  that  religion  has  to  do  with  verifiable  facts  of 
experience ;  and  that  its  mysteries,  some  of  which  may 
prove  insoluble,  are  yet  no  greater  than  the  mysteries  that 


216  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CIIEISTIANITY 

confront  science.  A  difference  of  terminology  has  long 
hidden  this  even  from  men  ordinarily  keen-sighted :  where 
religion  says  ^'faith"  science  says  ''hypothesis."  Both  in- 
volve the  same  mental  process  and  the  same  spiritual  at- 
titude. The  hypotheses  of  science  are  the  response  to  the 
mind's  demand  for  intellectual  unity  and  completeness. 
They  outrun  full  demonstration.  That  is  scientific  faith, 
and  religious  faith  differs  no  whit.  God  is  a  hypothesis 
equally  with  gravitation,  and  one  hypothesis  is  no  more 
matter  of  faith  than  the  other.  Gravitation  is  a  hypo- 
thesis that  attempts  to  unify  our  knowledge  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  and  explain  their  movements.  All  that  we  really 
know  is  that  stars  and  planets  behave  as  if  they  were  mu- 
tually attracted  in  a  certain  way.  Likewise  the  entire 
cosmos  behaves  as  if  there  were  a  Being  who  includes  and 
unifies  all  the  phenomena  of  nature,  all  the  elements  of 
experience,  into  one  organic  life  process,  controlled  by 
intelligence,  will  and  goodness. 

The  problem  of  theology  is  not  a  question  of  knowing 
everything,  or  of  fully  comprehending  anything;  it  is  a 
question  of  unifying  our  knowledge  and  clarifying  our 
ideas  and  refusing  to  pretend  to  believe  contradictories. 
The  essence  of  obscurantism  is  blind  clinging  to  discred- 
ited facts  and  theories  of  religion,  and  it  is  the  ''theology" 
guilty  of  this  unpardonable  sin  that  is  here  held  up  to 
reprobation.  A  Christian  theology  will  be  a  necessity  so 
long  as  there  is  a  Christian  life;  for  religion  must  not 
consist  of  mere  vague  emotions  and  aspirations,  but  must 
be  founded  in  a  definite  philosophy  of  life,  corresponding 
to  our  scientific  knowledge  as  well  as  to  our  inner  experi- 
ence, or  it  cannot  successfully  appeal  to  a  world  that  more 
and  more  demands  reality  as  a  basis  for  its  living.  If 
such  a  theology  as  this  is  impossible,  then  religion  is 
doomed  to  become  the  sole  property  of  the  "neurotic,  the 
erotic  and  the  tommyrotic." 


WHAT   THEN    IS    CHKISTIANITY  ?  217 

III 

What  is  Christianity  (  Who  shall  tell  lis,  Paul  or 
Jesus  ?  Which  teaches  the  truth  that  Christians  should 
accept  as  fundamental  and  authoritative?  And,  if  the 
answer  to  this  is,  ''Both,"  then  comes  the  further  question, 
Are  their  teachings  mutually  in  agreement,  or  are  there 
elements  in  each  that  are  mutually  contradictory  and  ex- 
clusive? Is  there  a  rational  way  of  holding  both  teach- 
ings, as  to  substance  at  least?  Have  their  words  been 
misunderstood,  distorted  into  semblance  of  contradiction 
that  does  not  actually  exist  ? 

As  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  distortion  is  certain.  The 
fact  concerning  his  work  that  most  moves  our  wonder  and 
pity  is  that  nobody  understood  him.  The  great  tragedy 
of  Jesus  was  not  his  death  but  his  life.  'No  human  being 
has  been  so  solitary.  There  were  those  who  loved  him,  a 
few,  but  among  them  all  he  had  not  one  real  friend,  not 
one  to  whom  he  could  bare  his  inmost  soul  and  be  sure  of 
sympathetic  hearing.  Weep  over  the  dying  Jesus,  ye  who 
will,  while  those  who  have  eyes  to  see  mourn  the  living 
Jesus,  the  man  who  had  none  to  whom  he  could  unlock 
his  heart.  Loneliness  is  the  penalty  of  greatness,  and 
none  was  ever  so  lonely  as  he,  because  among  all  the  sons 
of  men  he  was  greatest. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  mental  impenetrability,  a  certain  meas- 
ure of  the  truth  did  percolate  through  the  souls  of  those 
in  the  inner  circle  of  disciples  and  became  the  possession 
of  all  his  followers.  The  memory  of  his  hearers,  fortu- 
nately for  us,  was  better  than  their  insight,  and  they  pre- 
served with  remarkable  fidelity  teachings  that  they  neither 
believed  nor  comprehended.  Do  we  lay  ourselves  open  to 
a  charge  of  complacent  conceitedness  by  this  assumption 
that  our  generation  understands  Jesus  better  than  his 
own  ?  Some  may  think  so ;  some  will  certainly  not  lose 
the  opportunity  to  say  so.  "But  others  will  reason  thus: 
If  nineteen  centuries  of  divine  Providence  and  Christian 


218  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

experience  have  thrown  no  additional  light  on  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  Man  and  the  Teaching,  what  are  Providence 
and  Christian  experience  good  for?  One  is  content  to 
leave  his  critics  to  wrestle  with  that  problem. 

And  if  the  teaching  of  Jesns  has  been  misunderstood  and 
distorted,  so  has  that  of  Paul.  There  is  an  element  of  phil- 
osophizing about  the  facts  of  religion  in  his  letters  that  is 
totally  absent  from  the  words  of  Jesns,  but  that  of  itself 
constitutes  no  real  difficulty.  Paul  could  not  help  being 
shaped  by  the  school  of  Gamaliel,  nor  could  he  avoid  the 
powerful  influence  of  the  prevailing  Greco-Roman  civiliza- 
tion of  Tarsus.  These  things  imply  differences  between 
him  and  Jesus,  but  not  contradictions.  It  is  to  later 
thinkers,  taking  shelter  behind  his  name,  that  we  are  to 
look  for  the  contradictions.  Historic  Paulinism  is  as  little 
the  creation  of  the  apostle,  as  historic  Christianity  is  the 
creation  of  Jesus.  Both  are  sheer  perversions  of  their 
original.  The  highly  speculative  element  in  Paulinism 
was  mainly  the  contribution  of  Greek  philosophy  through 
the  influence  of  the  Pathers  of  Alexandria,  of  whom 
Clement  and  Origen  were  most  eminent.  They,  and  not 
Paul,  are  the  real  authors  of  Christian  theology.  Both 
Avere  Platonists.  They  made  much  use  of  Paul's  writings, 
but  vastly  transformed  his  ideas  while  most  professing 
to  follow  the  great  apostle. 

Under  this  Greek  influence,  Christianity  w^as  made  a 
philosophy  for  the  cultivated,  while  at  the  same  time,  un- 
der the  spell  of  certain  Asiatic  cults,  it  w^as  made  a  mystery 
for  the  ignorant.  The  two  tendencies  cambined  in  Ca- 
tholicism, and  Augustine  put  the  capstone  on  the  edifice. 
His  interpretation  of  Paul  has  passed  current  for  the 
original  teaching  of  the  apostle  to  our  own  day.  If  Augus- 
tine failed  in  any  detail  to  complete  the  transformation  of 
Paul,  Calvin  supplied  the  defect. 

Xo  student  of  the  early  centuries,  however,  can  avoid 
the  conclusion  that,  if  Christianity  means  chiefly  a  scheme 


WHAT    THEN    IS    CHRISTIANITY?  219 

of  doctrine,  Paul  is  its  real  source.  That  is  to  say,  his 
writings  furnish  the  primary  materials  out  of  which  later 
theologians  formulated  that  chain  of  doctrines  that  for 
centuries  has  been  called  the  ''gospel."  Such,  for  example, 
as  that  '^in  Adam's  fall  we  sinned  all" ;  that  the  Son  of 
God,  who  lived  in  the  divine  likeness  and  glory,  but  took 
upon  himself  human  form,  died  as  a  propitiation  for  the 
sins  of  men ;  that  faith  in  him  justifies  the  sinner  without 
works  of  law;  that  only  those  specially  chosen  by  God  be- 
lieve and  are  saved ;  that  Christ  will  come  again  to  judge 
the  world,  and  the  bodies  of  men  will  be  raised  from  their 
graves,  and  the  saints  will  reign  with  Christ  forever.  This 
is  historic  Paulinism,  and  it  is  historically  true  that  the 
religion  of  Jesus  did  not  assimilate  Paulinism,  but  suc- 
cumbed to  it. 

The  undeniable  difference  between  Paul  and  Jesus  was 
made  an  absolute  antithesis  by  the  early  Church,  and  has 
remained  an  antithesis  to  this  day.  Wherever  Jesus  and 
Paul  agree,  the  followers  of  Paul  are  comparatively  silent. 
Wherever  Jesus  and  Paul  seem  to  differ,  they  not  only 
follow  Paul  but  exaggerate  the  difference.  In  every  case 
where  it  is  at  all  feasible,  they  substitute  Paul  for  Jesus. 
'Now  if  this  antithesis  is  to  be  maintained,  if  we  must 
choose  between  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Paul  of 
the  theologians,  we  must  choose  Jesus.  Else,  let  us  cease 
to  call  ourselves  Christians  and  rename  ourselves  Pauli- 
cians,  as  certain  heretical  sects  once  frankly  did.  And 
surely  of  all  possible  heresies  the  least  pardonable  is  to 
])rofess  to  follow  Jesus  and  really  to  follow  Paul. 

But  if  Paul  may  be  reasonably  interpreted  once  more, 
as  he  has  not  been  since  the  days  of  Augustine,  we  may 
keep  both  him  and  Jesus  as  the  chief  teachers  of  our  faith. 
What  the  Christian  world  can  no  longer  afford  to  do,  is  to 
lot  the  theologians'  Paul  thrust  Jesus  into  the  background. 
It  can  no  longer  afford  to  j3ermit  the  social  gospel  that 
was  the  essence  of  the  original  Christianity^  to  be  over- 


220  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHEISTIANITY 

sloughed  by  a  theology  called  Pauline,  but  really  an  un- 
Panline  Greek  philosophy  long  since  discarded  by  phil- 
osophers, but  still  held  fast  by  theologians.  The  freedom 
that  Paul  once  asserted  from  the  law  of  works,  we  must 
now  claim  from  the  law  of  dogma.  Such  freedom  is  our 
birthright. 

IV 

What  is  Christianity?  Is  there  place  in  it  for  Paul- 
inism? 

We  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  divergence  be- 
tween Paul  and  Jesus  would  cease  to  appear  serious,  in 
any  theologic  sense,  if  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  the 
writings  of  Paul  were  substituted  for  the  unreasonable 
perversion  of  them  that  has  so  long  obtained.  For  it  is 
essentially  unreasonable  not  to  distinguish  things  that 
plainly  differ,  to  identify  things  that  should  be  kept  care- 
fully separate  in  our  thinking.  The  solution  of  our  prob- 
lem has  already  been  foreshadowed.  Most  of  our  diffi- 
culties in  relation  to  the  apostle's  teachings  disappear  when 
we  adopt  as  the  principle  of  interpretation  the  simple 
hypothesis  that  Paul  is  not  stating  "eternal  truths,"  not 
formulating  dogmas  for  all  time,  but  illustrating  perma- 
nent religious  and  ethical  principles  in  terms  of  thought 
comprehensible  by  his  own  age. 

It  would  be  a  reasonable  corollary  from  this  principle 
that  analogies  suggested  by  institutions  then  existing  would 
be  illuminating  to  Paul's  contemporaries,  but  that  now, 
when  those  institutions  have  ceased  to  exist,  the  ideas  con- 
nected with  them  have  also  ceased  to  have  force  and  sig- 
nificance. It  is  the  identification  of  the  passing  show  of 
his  own  age  with  the  permanent  in  religion,  that  has  made 
the  great  apostle  the  apparent  leader  of  the  blind  into  the 
ditch  of  unbelief.  Once  let  us  get  it  clearly  in  mind  that 
the  ilhistration  is  not  to  be  identified  with  the  truth  illus- 
trated, tliat  the  analogy  is  temporary  but  the  principle 


AVIIAT    THEN   IS    CHRISTIANITY?  221 

lierniaiient,  and  real  antagonism  between  Jesus  and  Paul 
no  longer  exists.  Differences  remain,  but  not  contradic- 
tions. 

An  instance  of  what  is  meant  lies  on  the  very  surface 
of  the  Epistles.  Paul's  letters  are  full  of  assertions  that 
believers  are  the  '^slaves"  of  Christ,  and  of  illustrations 
founded  on  slavery.  (^)  It  was  perfectly  natural  that  he 
should  choose  slavery  as  an  analogy  of  the  new  and  inti- 
mate relation  that  exists  between  the  believer  and  Christ, 
that  the  sense  of  obligation,  strict  and  indissoluble,  to  him 
who  had  shown  himself  to  be  the  Great  Deliverer  should 
so  express  itself.  Slavery  was  a  universal  institution  in 
the  first  century,  as  familiar  in  all  its  details  as  the  family 
relation,  and  lending  itself  as  easily  to  illustration  of  re- 
ligious truth.  But  while  the  family  still  endures,  slavery 
has  gone.     What  was  natural  to  Paul  is  unnatural  to  us. 

We  can  no  longer  think  in  terms  of  slavery.  The  insti- 
tution has  so  far  passed  away  from  our  knoAvledge  and 
experience  that  it  has  no  more  reality  for  us  than  the  rela- 
tions of  feudalism.  If  Paul  had  lived  in  the  Middle  Ages 
he  would  undoubtedly  have  likened  the  believer's  relation 
to  Christ  to  that  of  vassal  and  overlord,  and  the  illustra- 
tion would  then  have  been  significant  and  helpful.  But 
analogies  drawn  from  slavery  or  feudalism  or  any  past 
state  of  society  are  a  hindrance  rather  than  a  help  to  men 
of  our  age.  Before  they  are  valid,  they  must  be  trans- 
lated into  terms  of  our  own  experience.  Untranslated 
they  do  not  give  us  any  assistance  in  understanding  our 
relation  to  Jesus,,  but  function  as  a  barrier  between  us 
and  him.  Por  he  is  not  in  reality  an  owner  and  we  his 
chattel  slaves,  nor  is  he  an  overlord  and  we  his  vassals. 

(^)  Three  of  his  letter'*  lie  befjins  by  eallinsi  himself  a  slave  of 
Christ  (Romans,  Philiii])ians.  Titns).  He  describes  himself  and 
Timothy  to  the  Corinthians  as  "your  slaves  for  Jesus'  sake";  he 
falls  the  former  state  of  unbelief  "slaves  of  sin."  and  the  new  status 
of  the  believer  as  "slaves  of  riirhteousness,"  "Christ's  slave,"  "slaves 
of  the  Lord"  and  the  like.  Cal.  1  :10:  1  Cor.  7:22:  Eph.  0:5;  2  Tim. 
2:24:  Col.  4:12. 


222  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

It  is  not  because  we  wish  to  deny  the  reality  of  the  bond 
between  ns  and  him  that  no  Christian  of  to-day  can  think 
of  himself  as  slave  or  vassal  to  Jesus.  We  do  not  desire 
to  make  the  bond  less  strait  and  enduring,  but  these 
analogies  are  impossible  to  us.  '^Slave"  and  ^S^assal"  no 
longer  illustrate  truth ;  they  only  obscure  truth. 

What  are  called  the  ^'great  doctrines"  of  Paul  are  of 
the  same  character  precisely:  illustrations  of  religious 
truth  from  contemporary  thought,  analogies  from  contem- 
porary institutions.  Paul  and  Calvin  had  one  experience 
in  common,  a  fundamental  experience  that  conditioned  all 
their  thinking.  Both  had  been  brought  up  under  the 
shadow  of  Roman  imperialism;  both  had  been  indoctrin- 
ated with  the  principles  of  Roman  law.  The  spirit  of 
Roman  institutions  had  made  an  ineradicable  impression 
on  their  minds.  They  were  one  in  conceiving  the  char- 
acter and  acts  of  God  in  the  light  of  the  greatest  institu- 
tion and  the  greatest  personage  known  to  their  respective 
times,  the  Roman  Empire  and  its  Emperor.  The  sov- 
ereignty of  God,  his  omnipotent  power,  his  absolute  rights 
over  the  world  and  the  race  he  had  created,  seemed  to 
them  elemental  truth  about  God,  and  so  each  made  this 
tlie  fundamental  postulate  of  his  theology. 

Because  of  their  familiarity  with  monarchs  and  trap- 
pings of  royalty  the  Scripture  writers  generally,  and  Paul 
especially,  put  many  of  their  truths  in  forms  that  are  for 
us  quite  obsolete  and  meaningless.  Or,  so  far  as  they 
have  meaning  for  us,  it  is  a  wrong  meaning,  so  wrong  as 
often  to  be  repulsive.  The  popular  caricature  of  the  Scrip- 
tural teachings  about  God,  though  a  caricature,  retains 
many  of  the  features  of  the  original :  An  absentee  God, 
an  Almighty  King  on  a  distant  throne,  with  a  court  of 
angels  ever  about  him  singing  his  praises,  flattered  by  the 
homage  of  men  and  constantly  interfering  with  the  affairs 
of  the  universe  in  response  to  the  selfish  pleas  of  syco- 
phantic Avorshipers — this  is  the  popular  "God."     These 


WHAT    THEN   IS    CHRISTIA^'ITY  ?  223 

unworthy  ideas  defile  a  large  part  of  our  hymnology,  aud 
still  supply  the  greater  part  of  the  phraseology  of  our 
prayers,  yet  no  respectable  Christian  thinker  to-day  con- 
ceives God  after  this  fashion. 

On  the  contrary,  we  conceive  God  in  a  fashion  very  dif- 
ferent. We  look  on  Kaiser  and  imperialism,  not  with 
admiration,  but  with  abhorrence;  if  God  were  such  as  he, 
we  would  as  soon  worship  the  devil.  Emperors  are  an 
anachronism.  Despotism,  on  earth  or  in  the  heavens,  is 
unthinkable.  To  us  God  is  not  monarch,  but  Father,  and 
the  greatest  thing  in  his  personality  is  not  sovereignty  but 
love.  lie  is  not  seated  on  a  distant  throne,  but  is  the 
over-present  Power  in  whom  we  live  and  move.  It  is  no 
longer  true  for  us  that 

God's  in  his  heaven, 

AlFs  right  with   the  world. 

If  God  were  in  his  heaven,  all  would  be  most  wrong  with 
the  world.  All's  right  with  the  world,  because  God  is 
not  in  some  far-away  heaven,  but  is  here  in  the  world  he 
has  made,  in  the  struggle  of  his  creatures,  fighting  with 
them  to  win  greater  victories  over  evil,  toiling  by  their 
side  to  bring  in  a  larger  good  than  men  have  yet  known. 
An  autocratic  God,  despotically  ruling  the  universe  from 
the  outside,  sufficed  the  age  of  Calvin,  as  it  did  that  of 
Paul :  but  we  must  have  a  democratic  God,  an  immanent 
God,  a  God  who  dwells  with  us  and  in  us,  a  God  who  is 
still  in  the  throes  of  creation,  a  God  who  calls  us  to  be 
liis  comrades  and  helpers  in  the  enterprise  of  making  a 
new  earth  wherein  righteousness  dwells. 

According  to  the  author  of  Genesis,  God  created  man 
in  his  own  image,  but  that  statement  suggests  a  much 
larger  content  to  our  minds  that  it  did  to  his.  AVe  can 
no  longer  think,  as  that  Hebrew  writer  did,  of  a  God  who 
made  a  world  in  six  days  and  '^finished  the  work  that  he 
had  made,-'  and  because  he  had  finished  his  work  ''rested 


224  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

on  the  seventli  day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made," 
and  inferentially  has  been  resting  ever  since.  To  lis  the 
creation  of  the  world  does  not  seem  a  work  begun  some 
five  thousand  years  ago  and  finished  out  of  hand  in  six 
days,  but  a  process  begun  uncounted  ages  ago  and  still 
going  on.  IN^ot  instantaneous  creation,  but  continuous  cre- 
ation, is  our  idea  of  divine  activity.  God  is  not  an  idler 
in  the  heavens  but  is  still  a  Maker.  ''My  Father  has  been 
working  hitherto  and  I  am  working,"  said  Jesus. 

Creating  man  in  God's  image  is  God's  greatest  work,  as 
the  writer  of  Genesis  said,  but  it  is  a  work  by  no  means 
finished.  We  may  well  look  for  the  coming,  not  of 
Metzsche's  Superman,  a  Gulliver  amidst  Lilliputians,  but 
for  a  race  of  Supermen,  as  far  greater  than  men  now  liv- 
ing as  are  the  highest  races  of  to-day  greater  than  their 
savage  ancestors — as  far  greater,  perhaps,  as  those  savages 
were  greater  than  the  brutes  from  which  they  sprang.  Our 
confidence  in  the  indefinite  perfectibility  of  man  rests  on 
our  belief  in  the  continuous  creative  activity  of  God.  He 
has  something  to  make  of  man  better  and  higher  than  we 
now  know,  or  perhaps  can  now  conceive.  The  "new  cre- 
ation" in  Christ  Jesus  of  which  Paul  speaks (^)  is  now  in 
process  of  creation,  and  in  a  deeper  sense  than  that  in- 
tended by  the  apostle  John  we  may  say,  ''E'ow  are  we 
children  of  God,  and  it  is  not  yet  made  manifest  what  we 
shall  be."(2) 

A  larger  idea  of  salvation  follows  necessarily  from  this 
larger  conception  of  God  and  his  works.  The  epic  of  re- 
demption is  not  the  story  of  a  single  soul,  striving  against 
giants  and  angels  and  demons  for  a  few  years  to  attain  a 
solitary  holiness,  but  the  struggle  of  a  race  through  count- 
less generations  to  realize  an  ideal  of  social  righteousness, 
justice  and  love.  So  far  as  Paulinism  can  help  in  this 
struggle,  it  will  be  a  welcome  ally.     By  far  the  greater 

(M    2    Cor.    5:17;    Gal,    0:15. 
(^)    1   John  3:2. 


WHAT   THEX    IS    CHRISTIANITY?  225 

part  of  what  the  world  has  hitherto  called  "saintliness" — 
a  cultivation  of  the  personal  virtues,  with  absolute  disre- 
gard of  duties  to  fellowmen — is  mere  evasion  of  duty  and 
far  from  the  admirable  thing  it  has  long  been  conceived 
to  be.  Indeed,  the  world  is  nearly  ready  for  the  assertion 
that  the  greater  the  '^saint''  the  greater  the  sinner.  In 
this  warfare,  the  "slaclver"  will  find  little  tolerance.  The 
old  Roman  proverb,  Unus  Christianus  est  nullus  Chris- 
tianus — one  Christian  is  no  Christian  at  all — had  a  good 
deal  of  truth  wrapped  up  in  its  five  terse  words.  Quietism 
is  not,  as  !^ietzsche  declared,  the  logical  development  of 
the  gospel,  but  its  antipodes. 

Religion  begins  historically  in  clan  ideas,  in  the  totem 
and  taboo,  and  not  in  individual  seekings  after  God.  It 
is  in  its  essence  and  inmost  fiber  social,  and  all  its  institu- 
tions have  a  social  origin.  Hence  redemption  must  be  a 
social  process.  Regeneration  is  not  individual,  because 
sin  is  not  individual.  But  a  minute  fraction  of  human 
evil,  if  any  fraction  at  all,  concerns  a  single  person  only. 
Sin  is  social ;  its  consequences  affect  the  entire  social  group, 
as  well  as  the  erring  individual.  The  cure  of  sin  must 
therefore  be  as  much  social  as  individual.  We  must  learn 
to  think  of  sin  as  an  offense  against  our  fellows  primarily, 
an  offense  against  God  in  our  fellows.  This  larger  view 
of  sin  will  revolutionize  Christianity,  and  make  it  once 
more  the  social  force  its  Founder  designed  it  to  be. 

When  we  thus  conceive  God  and  his  relations  to  us,  re- 
ligion takes  on  a  richer  meaning  than  we  can  find  in  the 
writings  of  Paul.  His  teaching  is  not  false,  but  in  large 
part  outgrown.  His  appeal  is  too  much  to  the  individual 
soul  to  secure  salvation  by  individual  faith.  This  is  a 
gospel  of  selfishness,  that  falls  below  the  best  ethical  stand- 
ard of  the  world  outside  the  Church — a  world  that  has 
come  to  acknowledge,  if  not  to  practice  consistently,  the 
truth  that  there  is  in  man  an  instinct  higher  than  self- 
interest,   the   instinct  of  love,   altruism,   tliought  for  the 


226  rUNDAMEI^^TALS  OF  CITRTSTIAXITY 

other  man.  The  Church  can  never  win  on  its  present 
lines,  which  are  the  lines  of  Paulinism.  It  needs  a  re- 
vival of  true  religion  more  sorely  than  those  whom  in  its 
complacency  it  calls  ''the  unsaved."  Of  course,  those 
within  the  pale  of  the  Church  cannot  easily  be  persuaded 
that  they  are  not  among  the  securely  ''saved/'  yet  the 
real  fact  is  that  their  case  is  often  more  hopeless  than  that 
of  the  "unsaved/'  because  they  are  so  steeped  in  religious 
conceit  and  so  ignorant  of  what  real  "salvation"  is. 

The  revival  that  the  Church  needs  is  therefore  one  that 
will  lift  it  out  of  its  present  complacency  and  selfishness, 
that  will  make  it  hear  the  call  of  God  to  the  heroic  in  man, 
that  will  appeal  to  that  capacity  for  struggle  and  self- 
sacrifice  which  is  the  true  image  of  God  in  us.  The 
Church  needs  a  revival  that  will  inspire  it  to  put  far  away 
the  desire  of  glory  and  happiness  and  ease,  that  will  make 
it  listen  to  the  divine  voice  that  holds  out  to  us  as  our  re- 
ward of  service,  not  a  lazy  heaven,  but  the  joy  of  creation, 
the  glory  of  bringing  good  out  of  evil,  beauty  out  of  ugli- 
ness, order  out  of  chaos — the  stern  joy  that  warriors  feel, 
not  the  allurements  of  pleasure  and  luxury.  For  ours  is 
a  warrior  religion.  Let  hedonism  be  our  philosophy  of 
life,  but  let  it  be  that  exalted  hedonism  which  values  most 
the  joy  of  battle,  the  joy  of  struggle,  the  joy  of  toil.  After 
all,  religion  is  the  Great  Adventure.  It  satisfies  the  deep 
Wanderlust  of  the  race,  and  affords  full  scope  for  the 
red-blooded  man's  fighting  instinct,  his  passion  for  achieve- 
ment of  the  worth  while. 


AVhat  is  Christianity  ?  Is  it  democracy  ?  The  Church 
of  the  Messiah  in  ^N'ew  York,  to  which  men  like  Robert 
Collyer  and  Minot  J.  Savage  have  ministered  in  the  past, 
Avhich  has  lionorable  traditions  as  a  Unitarian  church,  has 
disclaimed   Unitarianism  as  too  narrow  for  its  present 


WHAT   THEX    IS    CllRISTIAXITY  ?  227 

conceptions  of  religion  and  has  transformed  itself  into 
^'Tlie  Community  Cluirch  of  ^ew  York."  Is  it  necessary 
or  probable  that  Christian  churches  generally  will  repudi- 
ate their  historic  names  and  traditions  for  some  demo- 
cratic or  socialistic  title  more  expressive  of  their  new  ideals 
and  aspirations  ?  If  religion  is  to  be  identified  hereafter 
with  democracy  it  behooves  us  to  understand  what  is  dem- 
ocracy and  in  what  it  differs  from  historic  Christianity. 

Beyond  a  doubt  historic  Christianity  as  a  whole  has  been 
undemocratic.  With  few  exceptions,  all  forms  of  organ- 
ized I'oligion  have  had  an  aristocratic  basis.  Oligarchies 
of  ministers  or  bishops  have  ruled  Protestantism,  and  at 
times  Catholicism,  while  in  these  later  centuries  Roman 
Catholicism  has  become  an  absolute  monarchy.  There 
can  be  no  permanent  modus  vivendi  between  such  Chris- 
tianity and  democracy — one  or  the  other  must  eventually 
hold  the  field.  Only  a  democratic  religion  can  survdve 
among  a  democratic  people. 

Democracy  and  real  Christianity  have  a  common  ethical 
basis,  for  democracy  is  the  nile  of  right.  Hegel  was  jus- 
tified in  his  theory  of  the  State  as  an  organism,  with  a 
supreme  claim  on  its  members,  but  wrong  in  making  force 
the  living  spirit  of  this  body.  Right,  the  common  wel- 
fare, is  the  animating  spirit  of  organic  society. 

Democracy  and  genuine  Christianity  have  a  common 
goal,  for  democracy  is  liberty  and  Christianity  has  always 
been  proclaimed  as  deliverance.  Professor  Thomas  H. 
Green  once  defined  liberty  as  "positive  power  or  capacity 
which  each  man  exercises  or  holds  through  the  help  or 
security  given  him  by  his  fellowmen,  and  Avhich  he  in 
turn  ]](^l))s  to  secure  for  them."  Liberty  is  not  freedom 
from  restraint,  but  power  to  do  and  enjoy.  The  few  re- 
straints necessary  in  a  civilized  society,  to  prevent  any 
from  trespassing  on  the  equal  liberty  of  all,  arc  so  far 
surpassed  by  the  increment  of  privilege  and  capacity  to  do, 
as  to  be  negligible.     That  is  precisely  the  conception  of 


228  FUN^DAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

Christian  freedom  taught  in  the  New  Testament — not  a 
surrender  of  anything  worth  while,  but  the  acquisition  of 
new  power  and  privilege.  Both  democracy  and  Chris- 
tianity mean  that  every  man  and  woman  shall  enjoy  a 
free  personality  in  a  world  of  equal  opportunity.  There 
will  always  be  diversities  of  gifts  and  achievements,  and 
these  diversities  should  be  presumed  to  be  greater,  not 
less,  in  a  state  of  freedom  than  our  present  state  of  partial 
slavery.  Social  equality  does  not  mean  social  identity, 
but  it  will  always  be  better  for  the  world  that  many  should 
have  silver  in  their  pockets  than  that  a  few  should  have 
gold. 

Both  democracy  and  Christianity  insist  on  the  worth 
and  dignity  of  the  individual,  as  well  as  on  the  value  of 
social  institutions.  Both  demand  that  every  human  soul 
shall  be  treated  as  an  end ;  the  exploitation  of  the  present 
order  treats  him  as  a  means.  Man  should  live  for  his 
own  perfectibility,  not  as  a  machine  for  producing  wealth 
for  another  man.  The  exploitation  of  human  life  and 
human  liberties  that  has  gone  on  for  a  century  in  America 
under  the  pretext  of  equal  economic  opportunity  for  all, 
is  no  more  democracy  than  Russian  autocracy  was  democ- 
racy. 

All  genuine  ideas  of  democracy  find  powerful  support 
in  the  teachings  of  Jesus ;  while  the  best  that  we  can  say 
of  the  writings  of  Paul  is  that  they  need  not  be  construed 
as  opposing  democracy.  But  the  teaching  of  Jesus  can- 
not be  harmonized  with  a  materialistic  democracy.  Ma^ 
terial  prosperity  was  not  his  ideal,  though  he  distinctly 
taught  that  all  men  might  and  should  have  a  sufficiency. 
When  we  have  won  the  means  of  living  for  all,  we  must 
still  turn  to  Jesus  to  learn  what  to  do  with  life.  Let  us 
not  be  surprised  if  for  a  time  democracy  does  not  fully 
comprehend  which  is  the  graver  problem  of  the  two,  since 
all  its  energies  are  just  now  required  for  the  solution  of 
the  firpt,     Objectors  to  all  proposals  made  for  the  ma- 


WHAT   THEN   IS   CHRISTIANITY?  229 

terial  betterment  of  mankind  are  quick  to  point  out  that 
the  present  state  of  mind  of  the  proletariat  affords  no 
bright  prosj)ect  of  the  higher  sort  of  progress.  They 
argue  that  workingmen  fail  to  use  for  self-improvement 
any  leisure  gained  by  shortened  hours  of  labor,  and  that 
they  therefore  deserve  no  further  concessions. 

But  what  reason  was  there  to  expect  any  immediate  en- 
thusiasm for  culture  among  workingmen?  Was  it  to  be 
rationally  supposed  that  the  deadening  monotony  of  their 
grinding  toil  would  give  them  an  appetite  for  the  higher 
things  surpassing  that  of  their  employers  ?  Is  it  not  true 
tliat,  with  vastly  greater  opportunity  and  encouragement, 
the  employers  often  have  as  little  love  of  culture  as  their 
workmen,  and  use  their  leisure  as  badly,  if  a  little  differ- 
ently ?  And  if  this  be  indisputably  true,  is  it  not  absurd 
to  blame  the  workingman  for  being  no  more  high-minded 
than  his  present  social  betters  ?  Give  him  time  to  become 
accustomed  to  some  leisure,  and  opportunity  to  acquire  a 
taste  for  literature  and  music  and  art  by  placing  these 
things  more  easily  Avithin  his  reach,  and  after  a  genera- 
tion or  two  if  his  mental  grade  is  no  higher  than  that  of 
the  present  ''tired  business  man,"  it  may  possibly  be  timely 
to  criticise  his  low  tastes  and  small  achievement. 

Our  reproaches  of  the  laborer  for  his  lack  of  interest  in 
the  higher  things  are  not  so  much  hypercritical  as  hypo- 
critical. We  are  not  really  surprised  that  he  prefers  his 
newspaper  to  poetry  and  philosophy,  cheap  fiction  to  Thack- 
eray and  Turgenieff ;  that  he  would  rather  hear  ragtime 
than  symphony;  that  he  goes  to  a  ball  game  rather  than 
to  an  art  gallery  on  a  holiday.  Is  not  the  same  true  of 
ourselves,  in  spite  of  our  pretense  of  superior  "culture"  ? 
In  our  self-conceit,  we  say  of  the  ''lower  classes,"  as  we 
contemptuously  call  them,  that  they  have  no  capacity  of 
enjoyment,  when  the  higher  pursuits  are  in  question. 
Perhaps  we  are  right ;  but  let  us  consider  how  little  they 
have  by  comparison  of  surplus  energy,  of  stimulus,   of 


2o0  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

leisure,  above  all,  of  knowledge.  If  their  tastes  are  crude 
and  their  pleasures  unrefined,  it  is  not  for  us  to  judge 
them,  since  we  have  for  generations  deprived  them  of 
opportunity  to  cultivate  their  spiritual  natures. 

The  taunting  challenge  is  often  flung  at  the  workers 
that  they  only  envy  the  rich,  and  that  at  bottom  their 
chief  desire  is  to  wear  diamonds  and  dine  at  the  Waldorf- 
Astoria.  Even  if  that  were  true,  what  of  it?  If  the  so- 
called  better  class  can  find  no  higher  use  for  its  wealth 
than  to  spend  it  in  vulgar  display  and  the  gratification  of 
sense,  is  it  so  discreditable  to  the  workers  that  they  desire 
the  same  things  that  most  please  their  supposed  ^'betters''  ? 
The  rich  buy  pictures — art  is  usually  a  good  investment — 
but  do  not  love  them.  The  rich  buy  books — one  must  have 
a  ^ ^library"  in  the  house — but  do  not  read  them.  The 
rich  go  to  the  opera — it  is  the  best  place  to  show  off  dress 
and  jewels — and  talk  throughout  the  performance.  One 
recalls  Mark  Twain's  reply  to  a  chattering  hostess:  ^'You 
really  must  come  to  our  box  again  Friday  night ;  they  give 
Faust  then."  ''Charmed,"  said  Mark;  '^I  don't  think  I 
have  heard  you  in  Faust." 

Equally  misplaced  is  that  oft-heard  bemoaning  of  democ- 
racy's contentment  with  mediocrity,  its  jealousy  of  genius 
and  even  of  talent,  its  lack  of  graciousness  and  charm,  its 
deadly  monotony.  All  these  things  are  true,  more  or 
less,  of  democracy  thus  far,  as  they  have  been  true  of  aris- 
tocracy at  times.  They  are  true  of  democracy,  not  be- 
cause they  are  inseparable  from  it,  but  because  democracy 
has  been  engaged  in  a  stern  fight  for  existence  and  has 
therefore  had  little  surplus  of  leisure  or  wealth  to  cultivate 
the  fine  art  of  living.  Yet  it  might  not  be  amiss  for 
these  mourners  to  recall  that  it  was  in  the  democratic  cit- 
ies of  Greece  that  art  and  letters  most  highly  flourished; 
and  that  the  next  most  distinguished  period  of  culture  is 
found  in  the  Italian  democracies  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

What  are  some  of  the  other  faults  of  democracy  ?     Dem- 


WHAT    THE^    IS    CHEISTIANITY  ?  231 

ocracy  is  vicious?  Yes,  but  democracy  might  lend  its 
vices  to  serve  as  the  virtues  of  aristocracy.  Democracy  is 
inefficient?  So  Germany  said;  but  the  Marne  and  Ver- 
dun were  France's  answer,  and  Chateau-Thierry,  Saint-Mi- 
Iiiel  and  the  Argonne  were  America's.  It  has  not  yet 
been  demonstrated  that  democracy  is  inefficient,  even  for 
war;  but  better  muddle  than  tyranny,  if  we  really  must 
choose  between  the  two.  It  is  not  clear  as  yet  that  we 
must  have  either. 

A  distinguishing  trait  of  Jesus  is  his  trust  in  human  na- 
ture. His  unshakable  faith  in  God  included  faith  in 
man,  as  made  in  God's  likeness.  Pessimism  was  impos- 
sible to  him.  Many  who  profess  to  be  his  disciples  lack 
his  belief  in  the  indefinite  perfectibility  of  man ;  they  pro- 
fess as  their  faith  that  man  has  no  possibilities  save  pos- 
sibilities of  evil.  But  Jesus  saw  in  man  capabilities  of 
all  good,  and  saw  him  realizing  his  wealth  of  future  ex- 
cellence. One  who  understands  this  attitude  of  Jesus, 
and  makes  it  his  own,  comes  at  length  to  comprehend  that 
democracy  is  an  elemental  force.  To  describe  anyone  as 
^'a  champion  of  democracy"  or  "a  foe  to  democracy"  is 
as  ludicrous  as  to  call  anyone  a  friend  or  foe  of  gravita- 
tion. In  the  case  of  either  force  it  is  wholly  a  question  of 
the  individual's  getting  himself  aligned  with  it  and  acting 
in  accordance  with  it,  or  being  crushed.  When  Mrs. 
Partington  tried  to  sweep  back  the  Atlantic,  she  did  not 
Tmdertake  a  more  hopeless  task  than  that  of  an  opponent 
of  democracy. 

The  remedy  for  the  defects  of  democracy  is  more  dem- 
ocracy; education — not  in  the  narrower  sense  of  instruc- 
tion, but  in  the  wider  sense  of  the  harmonious  training  of 
all  human  faculties,  alike  of  body  and  mind.  Mens  sana 
in  corpore  sano  will  still  do  as  a  condensed  formula,  with 
a  sufficiently  liberal  interpretation  of  mens.  We  have 
been  making  '^education"  too  exclusively  concerned  with 
the  acquirement  of  "all  kinds  of  delightful  and  useless 


232  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

learning/'  and  too  little  with  character.  Eiiskin  was  on 
the  right  track  when  he  said  that  the  learner  should  be 
trained  ^'not  so  much  to  know  what  he  would  otherwise 
not  know,  but  to  behave  as  he  would  not  otherwise  be- 
have." With  a  large  construction  of  ^'behave,"  as  covering 
all  human  conduct,  this  would  be  an  excellent  ideal  of  ed- 
ucation in  a  democracy. 

JSTot  the  late  war  merely,  but  unseen  influences  of  dec- 
ades have  been  hastening  the  world's  drift  towards  democ- 
racy. Royalty  long  ago  disappeared  in  England,  like  the 
cat  Alice  saw  in  Wonderland,  until  nothing  is  left  of  it 
but  the  smile.  The  King  is  an  imposing  iigure-head  for 
great  state  functions,  or  in  a  more  private  way  a  gracious 
layer  of  corner-stones  or  a  dignified  opener  of  museums, 
but  as  to  power — England's  King  is  only  a  gown  and  a 
crown.  Royalties  that  are  not  thus  content  to  be  reduced 
to  ciphers  will  soon  be  wiped  off  the  w^orld's  slate  alto- 
gether. 

Democracy  is  the  result  of  a  long  process  of  evolution, 
in  which  the  underlying  Power  of  the  universe  has  been 
expressing  his  character  in  man  and  society.  So  we  are 
able  to  profess  as  our  faith,  ^'God  is  democracy"  with 
quite  as  much  confidence  as  when  we  say,  "God  is  love." 
But  democracy  is  just  beginning  to  modify  religious 
thought,  so  long  cast  in  the  molds  of  monarchy  and  aristoc- 
racy. The  theologian  has  been  saying  for  ages  that  the 
history  of  mankind  is  the  awful  record  of  continued  and 
wilful  rebellion  against  God.  Democracy  suggests  a  new 
reading  of  the  history  of  the  world.  Written  in  rocks  or 
books  it  is  one  story :  the  glorious  record  of  a  painful  search 
after  God,  a  sublime  outreach  of  man  towards  a  higher 
goodness.  Man  never  "fell" — he  has  always  been  strug- 
gling upwards  after  the  good  and  true,  stumbling  and 
tumbling  often,  but  always  up  and  on  again. 

From  first  to  last  we  find  the  story  of  man  to  be  a  con- 
structive process ;  a  more  and  more  perfect  social  organism 


WHAT   THEN   IS   CHEISTIANITY  ?  233 

has  been  the  everlasting  goal.  All  nature  has  travailed 
together  to  bring  forth  man — body,  brain,  intelligence, 
ethical  perception,  social  institutions.  If  there  had  been 
an  easier  way  to  produce  man  and  human  society,  it  is 
rational  to  believe  that  God  would  have  chosen  it.  If 
there  were  any  less  thorny  path  for  man  to  climb  the 
heights  of  being  than  by  strife  and  bloodshed,  would  God 
not  have  taken  it?  The  late  dreadful  war  is  of  a  piece 
with  the  whole  development  of  this  planet,  as  geology  and 
history  tell  the  story. 

Thus  far,  it  must  be  conceded,  that  while  destructive 
forces  have  been  always  in  existence,  and  at  times  have 
been  so  active  that  they  seemed  on  the  point  of  overwhelm- 
ing humanity  in  one  red  ruin,  out  of  apparent  chaos  and 
death  have  in  the  end  always  emerged  life  and  order  and 
beauty.  Shall  we  not  have  faith  that  such  will  continue 
to  be  the  event?  ^N'ot  only  has  the  history  of  the  world 
been  a  record  of  social  progress,  but  religion  has  been  the 
decisive  factor  in  that  progress.  We  may  trace  the  stages 
of  social  melioration  by  the  gradual  elevation  and  purifi- 
cation of  men's  ideas  regarding  God  and  duty.  The  high- 
est point  in  civilization  yet  reached  is  coincident  with  a 
clearer  apprehension  of  the  principle  that  the  welfare  of 
the  individual,  and  even  his  very  existence,  is  conditioned 
on  the  welfare  of  society. 

Yet  the  pulpit  still  proclaims  its  old  gospel  of  individu- 
alism, ^'Redemption  is  individual.  You  cannot  get  ahead 
one  inch  except  on  that  basis."  (^)  But  the  experience  of 
centuries  assures  us  that  you  cannot  get  ahead  more  than 
an  inch  on  that  basis.  Real,  substantial  progress  is  pos- 
sible only  on  the  basis  of  a  redemption  that  is  neither  indi- 
vidual nor  social  exclusively,  a  redemption  that  is  indi- 
vidual and  social.     The  salvation  that  Jesus  offers  has 

(^)  Bishop  William  Fraser  McDowell,  "In  the  School  of  Christ," 
New  York,  1910.  He,  however,  soon  qualifies  this  assertion,  by  say- 
ing of  Christ,  "His  plan  included  a  saved  man,  a  saved  society,  a 
saved  world."    Lecture  II. 


234  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

been  too  narrowly  conceived  and  proclaimed:  as  an  indi- 
vidual process  witli  incidental  results  on  society.  We  are 
coming  to  conceive  it  as  fundamentally  a  social  enterprise, 
with  incidental  results  on  the  individual.  The  individual 
and  society  mutually  act  and  react.  For  this  new  concep- 
tion of  religion  we  go  to  Jesus,  not  to  Paul. 

yi 

We  see  then  that  a  final  answer  to  the  query,  What  is 
Christianity?  is  conditioned  by  our  notion  of  the  content 
of  ^'Christianity."  That  content  is  large,  for  it  includes 
a  philosophy,  a  religion  and  a  cult.  The  philosophy  of 
Christianity,  or  Christian  theology,  is  purely  intellectual. 
As  a  religion,  Christianity  signifies  a  life,  the  means  by 
which  men  try  to  form  and  maintain  right  relations  with 
God  and  their  fellows.  As  a  cult,  Christianity  means  the 
Church  and  its  worship,  rites  and  sacraments. 

All  these  elements  are  necessary;  each  is  indispensable 
in  its  place.  The  religious  life  must  have  a  rational  basis 
to  make  it  permanently  possible,  and  the  cult  is  impera- 
tive to  stimulate  the  emotional  fervor  without  which  the 
life  languishes.  Any  form  of  religion  that  lacks  either  a 
theology  or  a  cult,  lacks  vitality.  Deism  was  a  consistent 
philosophy  and  inculcated  a  high  ideal  of  life,  but  it  had 
no  cult  and  so  it  died.  Comte  took  warning  from  that 
failure  and  tried  to  provide  a  cult  for  his  Positivism,  but 
it  was  too  fantastic  for  success.  Frederic  Harrison  has, 
however,  for  more  than  a  generation  maintained  at  least 
a  semblance  of  a  positivist  cult  in  London,  but  he  has  suc- 
ceeded by  virtue  of  making  his  Positivist  society  a  feeble 
imitation  of  a  Christian  Church. 

A  philosophy  of  religion  is  possible  only  as  it  proceeds 
from  belief  that  there  is  a  God  about  whom  we  know 
something,  and  that  we  can  come  into  satisfactory  rela- 
tions with  him.     Hence  the  controlling  element  in  such 


WHAT   THEN   IS   CHRISTIANITY?  235 

a  philosophy  is  the  ideal  of  God  with  which  we  begin  and 
from  which  we  proceed  through  all  our  deductions.  It 
has  clearly  appeared  in  the  course  of  our  discussions  that 
Jesus  and  Paul  give  us  quite  different  ideas  of  God. 
These  ideas  are  so  very  different  that  inferences  cannot  be 
drawn  from  both  of  them  combined,  while  inferences 
drawn  from  either  taken  by  itself  lead  to  conclusions  so 
unlike  that  at  times  they  can  hardly  be  recognized  as  re- 
ferring to  the  same  God.  The  two  philosophies  that  result 
from  taking  Jesus  or  Paul  as  fundamental  authority  re- 
garding God  are  at  variance  almost  as  radically  as  any 
form  of  Christianity  differs  from  Buddhism.  Historic 
Christianity  has  followed  Paul.  It  is  the  main  object  of 
this  book  to  convince  readers  that  the  Christianity  of  the 
future  must  follow  Jesus. 

And  therefore  it  cannot  be  admitted  that  Christianity 
is  reducible  to  mere  ethics,  or  even  to  ^'morality  touched 
by  emotion/'  as  Matthew  Arnold  defined  religion.  Ethics 
may  be  said  to  be  the  science  of  values  in  their  relation  to 
conduct  as  a  whole.  It  is  the  interpretation  of  the  moral 
experience  of  the  race,  by  discovery  of  the  principles  im- 
plicit in  the  experience.  It  thus  becomes  the  evaluation 
of  all  values  for  the  purpose  of  life.  The  only  decisive 
test  of  ethical  values  is  reality — ^'revelation''  cannot  over- 
ride fact.  What  we  seek  is  the  unity  of  experience  in  the 
interest  of  truth. 

But  ethics  is  also  the  art  of  living,  the  application  of 
the  discovered  principles  to  the  events  of  daily  life.  Here 
ethics  coincides  with  religion,  without  becoming  identical 
with  it.  Religion  and  ethics  agree  that  the  ultimate  value 
is  the  welfare  and  character  of  mankind.  Good  conduct 
is  that  which  tends  to  promote  human  welfare  or  develop 
the  highest  type  of  character;  bad  conduct  is  the  reverse. 
We  call  justice,  trutli,  benevolence,  chastity,  virtues  be- 
cause experience  proves  that  their  practice  has  been  pro- 
motive of  general  welfare  and  character.     Polygamy  was 


236  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

esteemed  virtuous  for  centuries,  but  has  become  vicious 
because  of  observed  social  effects.  Drunkenness  and  gam- 
bling, once  uncondemned  and  then  tolerated,  are  now  imi- 
versally  stigmatized  as  vices,  because  they  uniformly  pro- 
duce deterioration  of  character  and  increase  human  misery. 

''Virtue''  and  ''Vice"  are  fluid  terms.  The  duty  of 
almsgiving  is  extolled  by  Jesus  and  Mohammed  and  reck- 
oned as  a  virtue  in  all  religions.  It  was  a  virtue  in  a 
social  condition  where  it  was  the  only  possible  alleviation 
of  human  misery,  but  indiscriminate  almsgiving  is  any- 
thing but  virtuous  in  our  day.  The  public  and  private 
provisions  for  systematic  relief  of  suffering  are  now  so 
numerous  and  so  great,  that  the  giving  of  alms  without 
careful  inquiry  is  merely  offering  a  premium  to  profes- 
sional beggary,  the  attempt  of  a  certain  class  to  live  with- 
out work.  A  former  virtue  has  become  a  vice,  in  which 
many  people  persist  because  their  heads  are  even  softer 
than  their  hearts.  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself"  has  long  been  taken  as  warrant  for  handing  the 
poor  a  small  coin  and  leaving  them  to  wallow  in  their 
riotous  and  sordid  slums.  It  is  now  seen  that  we  love  our 
neighbor  only  if  we  try,  not  merely  to  relieve  his  imme- 
diate hunger  and  nakedness,  but  to  extricate  him  from  his 
poverty  and  make  him  share  our  prosperity.  Society  is 
beginning  to  apprehend  that  all  enterprises  for  the  mere 
relief  of  distress  are  vicious,  and  that  what  is  demanded 
is  a  determined  and  intelligent  campaign  for  its  cure. 

If  it  be  objected  to  this  analysis  of  conduct  that  its 
basis  is  the  old  discredited  hedonism  of  Aristotle,  it  may 
be  replied  that  "happiness"  has  been  enlarged  to  include 
all  those  experiences  of  spiritual  satisfaction  that  result 
from  the  noblest  activities.  It  was  sheer  perversity  that 
made  Carlyle  denounce  hedonism  as  a  "pig  philosophy." 
Hedonism  may  be  so  narrowed  as  to  become  inadequate 
as  an  ethical  theory,  and  like  nearly  everything  it  may  be 
perverted,  but  Christian  theologians  should  be  slow  to  con- 


WHAT   THEN   IS   CHEISTIANITY  ?  237 

demn  it  after  proclaiming  for  centuries  the  happiness  of 
Heaven  as  the  goal  of  all  Christian  effort. 


The  discussion  of  the  preceding  pages  has  been  little 
else  than  detailed  exposition  of  three  propositions,  which 
together  form  a  syllogism : 

There  has  been  progressive  apprehension  by  man  of  the 
character  of  God,  and  of  his  purposes  in  the  creation  and 
maintenance  of  this  universe. 

This  progressive  knowledge  of  God  is  contained,  in  its 
hidiest  form,  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  collections  of 
literature  known  as  the  Old  and  l^ew  Testaments,  or  the 
Bible;  and  it  culminates  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  as  pre- 
served in  the  Gospels. 

The  teaching  of  Jesus  is  therefore  Christianity — ^the 
norm  of  religious  truth — and  all  other  teaching  must  be 
compared  with  it  and  corrected  by  it.  Whatever  will  not 
bear  that  test  must  be  laid  aside  as  part  of  the  outworn  and 
outgrown  garments  of  religion. 

These  propositions  are  uncomplicated  with  any  theo- 
logical speculations  regarding  the  person  of  Jesus.  Obvi- 
ously, if  true  at  all,  they  are  equally  true  whether  Jesus 
was  human  or  divine.  It  is  for  those  who  have  followed 
the  author  patiently  through  these  pages  to  say  how  satis- 
factorily the  above  propositions  have  been  sustained. 


APPENDIX 

CONSPECTUS  OF  N.  T.  TEACHING  ON  ATONEMENT 

Those  who  trust  in  themselves  that  they  are  orthodox, 
and  set  all  others  at  naught,  make  great  professions  of  close 
adherence  to  the  Scriptures.  They  assert  the  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament  especially  to  he  that  Christ  died  as  a  substi- 
tute for  sinners.  All  other  teaching  regarding  Atonement 
they  denounce  as  heresy  and  a  denial  of  the  supreme  authority 
of  the  Bible.  They  have  appealed  to  Caesar;  to  Caesar 
they  shall  go.  Following  is  a  list  of  the  chief  passages  in  the 
New  Testament  relating  to  Atonement,  literally  translated 
into  current  English,  and  classified  according  to  their  teach- 
ing. The  list  is  believed  to  be  approximately  exhaustive;  at 
any  rate,  it  is  fully  representative  of  all  the  different  types  of 
teaching ;  and  if  any  important  passage  has  been  omitted,  it  is 
by  inadvertence,  and  not  to  evade  any  difficulty  that  it  might 
present.  It  will  be  seen  that  only  a  single  text  (I  Pet.  3 :24) 
even  seems  to  teach  substitution ;  and'  that  is  a  reminiscence  of 
Old  Testament  poetry,  the  language  of  emotion,  not  of  exact 
scientific  definition. 

1.    Atonement  Dub  to  Divine  Love. 

John  3 :16,  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his 
Only-Begotten  Son,  that  every  one  who  trusts  in  him  may  not 
perish  but  have  eternal  life. 

Rom.  5:8,  But  God  made  known  his  own  love  unto  us, 
in  that  while  we  were  sinners  Christ  died  in  our  behalf. 

II  Cor.  8 :9,  For  you  know  the  gift  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  that  he  became  poor  for  your  sakes,  though  he  was 
rich,  that  you  might  be  enriched  by  his  poverty. 

238 


APPENDIX  239 

Eph.  5  :25,  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  just  as  Christ  also 
loved  the  church  and  delivered  himself  up  for  her  sake. 

Tit.  3  :4,  But  when  the  love  toward  man  of  our  Saviour 
God  appeared  .  .  .  which  he  poured  out  on  us  richly  through 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour. 

I  Jn.  3:16,  In  this  we  know  love,  that  he  for  our  sakes 
laid  down  his  life. 

I  Jn.  4:9,  Cod's  love  was  made  evident  in  our  case  by 
this :  God  sent  forth  into  the  world  his  Son,  the  Only-Begot- 
ten, in  order  that  we  might  live  through  him. 

2.     Object  of  Atonement. 
(a)  to  remove  sin. 

Rom.  5:6,  Christ  died  in  behalf  of  the  ungodly. 

Eom.  5  :8,  While  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  in  our 
behalf. 

Rom.  5:19,  For  as,  by  means  of  the  disobedience  of  the 
one  man,  the  many  were  constituted  sinners,  so  also  by  means 
of  the  obedience  of  the  one,  the  many  will  be  constituted  right- 
eous. 

Rom.  5:21,  Him  who  did  not  know  sin,  he  made  sin(^) 
for  our  sakes. 

Rom.  6:10,  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  to(-)  sin,  once 
for  all. 

Heb.  9  :26,  To  put  away  sin  he  has  been  manifested. 

I  Pet.  2 :24,  Who  himself  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree. 

I.  Pet.  3:18,  Because  also  Christ  suffered  once  for  all  in 
behalf  of  sin,  the  righteous  in  behalf  of  the  unrighteous. 

I.  Jn.  3  :5,  And  you  know  that  he  appeared  to  take  away 
sins. 

(h)  to  vindicate  God's  character. 

Rom.  3 :21,  26,  Apart  from  law,  a  righteousness  of  God 
has  been  manifested  ...  by  means  of  trust  in  Jesus  Christ 

(M   That  is,  treated  him  as  if  lie  were  a  sinner. 
(-)   The  probable  meaning  is,  ''He  died  with  reference  to  sin,"  •v 
"in  relation  to  sin." 


240  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHEISTIANITY 

.  .  .  for  exhibition  of  his  righteousness  in  the  present  time, 
to  the  end  that  he  may  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  who  is 
of  trust  in  Jesus. 


3.    Atonement^  How  Effected. 
(a)  ly  the  death  of  Christ. 

John  3  :1415,  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wil- 
derness, so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up,  that  every  man 
who  trusts  in  him  may  have  eternal  life. 

II  Cor.  5:14,  For  the  love  of  Christ  constrains  us,  who 
judge  this:  that  one  died  in  behalf  of  all;  therefore  they  all 
died. 

Heb.  2 :9,  That  he  by  God's  grace,  in  behalf  of  every  one 
might  taste  death. 

See  also  Rom.  5:8  and  I  Jn.  3:16  under  (1)  ;  Rom.  5:6, 
8;  6:10;  and  I  Pet.  2:24,  under  (2)  ;  and  Heb.  9:15  under 
(5). 

All  passages  referring  to  ^%e  cross''  (such  as  Gal.  6:14; 
I  Cor.  1:18;  Heb.  12:2)  or  to  being  ''crucified  with  Christ," 
(such  as  Gal.  2:20;  6:14)  also  belong  to  this  phase  of  the 
teaching. 

(&)  through  Ohrisfs  hloodC) 

Matt.  26 :28,  For  this  is  my  blood  of  the  [new]  (')  cove- 
nant, which  is  poured  out  for  the  sake  of  many  [unto  remis- 
sions of  sins]. 

Mk.  14:24,  This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is 
poured  out  for  the  sake  of  many. 

[Lk.  22 :20,  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood, 
which  is  poured  out  in  your  behalf.] 

Jn.  6 : 5 3-5 5,  Unless  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man 
and  drink  his  blood  you  have  no  life  in  yourselves.  He  that 
feeds  upon  my  flesh  and  drinks  my  blood  has  eternal  life  .  .  . 
For  my  flesh  is  real  food,  and  my  blood  is  real  drink. 

n   "The  blood  is  the  life,"  Deut.  12:22;  cf.  Lev.  17-11. 
(*)   Words  in  brackets  are  probably  interpolations  into  the  orig- 
inal text. 


APPENDIX  241 

Eph.  2:13,  You  who  were  once  far  off,  are  now  made 
near  in  Christ^s  blood. 

Heb.  9:13,  14,  For  if  the  blood  of  goats  and  bulls  ... 
sanctifies  to  the  purification  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  will 
Christ's  blood. 

Heb.  9  :22,  Apart  from  shedding  of  blood  comes  no  re- 
mission. 

Heb.  10 :4,  For  it  is  impossible  that  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  goats  should  take  away  sin. 

Heb.  10:29,  The  blood  of  the  covenant;  also  13:20. 

Heb.  13  :10,  Jesus,  that  he  might  sanctify  the  people  by 
means  of  his  o^vn  blood. 

I  Jn.  1 :7,  And  the  blood  of  Jesus,  his  Son,  purifies  us 
from  all  sin. 

Eev.  1 :5,  To  him  who  loved  us  and  freed  us  from  our 
sins  by  means  of  his  blood. 

Eev.  7:14,  These  are  they  who  came  out  of  the  Great 
Persecution;  and  they  washed  their  robes  and  made  them 
white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb. 

4.    Atonement  Effects  Forgiveness  of  Sins. 

Acts  5:30-32,  Jesus,  whom  you  killed  ...  did  God 
exalt  ...  to  give  .  .   .  remission  of  sins. 

Acts  13 :38,  By  means  of  this  man,  remission  of  sins  is 
proclaimed. 

Acts  26  :18,  The  Gentiles,  to  whom  I  will  send  thee  .  .  . 
that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins. 

Eph.  1:7,  In  whom  we  have  ...  the  forgiveness  of  our 
trespasses. 

Heb.  1 :3,  When  he  had  made  a  purification  of  sins. 

I  Tim.  1 :15,  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  deliver 
sinners. 

5.    Atonement  Described  as  Ransom. 

Matt.  20 :28,  For  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  served, 
but  to  serve,  and  to  give  his  life  as  a  ransom  instead  of  many. 
Mk,  10:45  is  a  parallel  passage. 


242  FUlTDAMEIfrTALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

Eom.  3 :24,  Justified  freely  by  his  gift,  by  means  of  the 
ransom  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 

I  Cor.  1 :30,  But  of  him  are  you  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  be- 
came wisdom  to  us  from  Grod,  and  righteousness,  and  sancti- 
fieation,  and  ransom. 

Gal.  3:13,  Christ  ransomed  us  from  the  law's  curse,  hav- 
ing become  a  curse  in  our  behalf. 

Gal.  4:5,  God  sent  forth  his  Son  .  .  .  that  he  might 
ransom  those  under  law. 

Eph.  1:7,  In  whom  we  have  the  ransom  by  means  of  his 
blood. 

Eph.  1:14,  Who  is  the  pledge  (or  first  payment)  of  our 
inheritance  until  the  ransom  (payment  in  full)  of  the  pur- 
chase. 

Eph.  4:30,  In  whom  you  were  sealed  unto  a  day  of  ran- 
som. 

Col.  1 :14,  The  Son  of  his  love,  in  whom  we  have  the  ran- 
som. (^) 

I  Tim.  2:16,  For  God  is  one;  one  also  is  a  go-between 
of  God  and  men,  Christ  Jesus,  a  man  who  gave  himself  as  a 
ransom  for  the  sake  of  all. 

Tit.  2:14,  Who  gave  himself  in  our  behalf,  that  he  might 
ransom  us  from  all  iniquity. 

Heb.  9:11,  Christ  as  a  high  priest  ...  by  means  of  his 
own  blood  entered  once  for  all  into  the  holy  places,  obtaining 
an  eternal  ransom. 

Heb.  9 :15,  He  is  a  go-between  of  a  new  covenant,  in 
order  that,  death  having  occurred  for  a  ransom  of  the  trans- 
gressions under  the  first  covenant,  those  that  have  been 
called  might  receive  the  eternal  inheritance. 

I  Pet.  1 :18,  Not  with  perishable  things  .  .  .  were  you 
ransomed  .  .  .  but  with  precious  blood  of  Christ,  like  a 
lamb  blameless  and  spotless. 

Eev.  5 :9,  Worthy  art  thou  to  take  the  roll,  and  open  its 
seals.    Because  thou  wast  slain  and  didst  purchase  for  God 

(^)   The  words  following  in  the  A.  V.,  "through  his  blood,"  are 
almost   certainly   a   later    interpolation. 


APPENDIX  243 

with  thy  blood,  out  of  every  tribe  and  tongue,  and  people, 
and  nation,  and  made  them  a  kingdom  and  priests  to  our  God. 

6.    Atonement  Described  as  "Mercy-Seat" (' ) 

Eom.  3:25,  Whom  God  set  forth  as  a  mercy-seat,  by 
means  of  trust  in  his  blood. 

I  Jn.  2 :2,  And  he  is  a  mercy-seat  with  reference  to  our 
sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  for  the  whole  world. 

Heb.  2:17,  That  he  might  become  a  merciful  and  a  faith- 
ful high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  be  a  mercy- 
seat  for  the  sins  of  the  people. 

7.    Atonement  Described  as  Sacrifice. 

I  Cor.  5:8,  For  Christ,  our  passover,  was  sacrificed. 

Heb.  5:1,  Every  high  priest  ...  is  appointed  ...  to 
offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  in  behalf  of  sins. 

Heb.  5:7,  Who  is  not  under  a  daily  necessity  ...  of 
offering  sacrifices,  for  this  he  did  once  for  all,  in  offering 
himself. 

Heb.  9 :14,  Christ  .  .  .  offered  himself  without  blemish 
to  God;  also  verses  26,  27. 

Heb.  10  :10,  Through  the  offering  of  Jesus  Christ's  body 
once  for  all. 

Heb.  10  :12,  But  he,  having  offered  one  sacrifice  in  behalf 
of  sins. 

Heb.  10:14,  For  by  one  offering  he  has  perfected  forever 
those  who  are  sanctified. 

8.    Atonement  Described  as  Reconciliation. 

Jn.  12 :32,  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men  to 
myself. 

Rom.  5 :9,  10,  For  if,  while  enemies  we  were  recon- 
ciled to  God  by  means  of  his  Son's  death,  much  more,  being 
reconciled,  we  shall  be  delivered  by  his  life.    And  not  merely 

(^)   A  meetin^-plaee,  for  reconciliation,  of  God  and  man.     A.  V. 
"to  make  reconciliation";  other  translations  ''to  make  propitiation." 


244:  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  CHEISTIANITY 

that,  but  [shall  he]  exulting  in  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  by  whose  means  we  have  now  received  the  reconcilia- 
tion (of.  11-15). 

II  Cor.  5 :  :18-20,  And  all  things  are  from  God,  who  rec- 
onciled us  to  himself  by  means  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  gave  to  us 
the  service  of  reconciliation :  namely,  that  God  was  in  Christ 
reconciling  a  world  to  himself,  not  reckoning  to  them  their 
trespasses  and  having  committed  to  us  the  message  of  the 
reconciliation.  On  behalf  of  Christ  therefore,  we  act  as  am- 
bassadors, as  though  God  were  entreating  through  us:  we 
beseech,  on  behalf  of  Christ,  Be  reconciled  to  God. 

Eph.  2:16,  That  he  might  reconcile  both  [Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles] in  one  body  to  God  by  means  of  the  cross. 

Col.  1 :20,  21,  And  by  means  of  him  to  reconcile  all  things 
to  himself,  having  made  peace  by  means  of  the  blood  of  his 
cross  .  .  .  And  you  he  has  reconciled  by  the  body  of  his 
flesh  by  means  of  death. 


INDEX 


Page 

Abelard  '-"l^n 

Abraham 136,  158,   1<6 

Descendants    of    13o 

Adam  and  Eve  135 

Adam's  sin  15^ 

Alexander     V^ 

Altruism   l^o 

Ambrose,  Saint l|Jo 

Amos    ••••  J-^ 

Anselm" 149,  186 

Anthropology    9^^ 

Apocalyptic  discourses  ...     8 

Apollos    AA"^2n 

Apostles    96,    150 

Aquinas,  Thomas. ..  .149,  204 

Arabia  |45 

Aratus  11^ 

Aristotle 104,  236 

Arnold,  Matthew..  12,  70,  235 

Asia  Minor 98 

Asiatic  cults   218 

Assisi,  Francis  of 94,  154 

Assyria   '^^ 

Athanasius    149 

Athenians  56 

Atonement,   blood    194 

Conspectus    of    238-244 

Doctrine  of.  .178,  179,  185,  202 

Ethical  theory  of 186,  194 

Gretian  theory  of 186,  194 

Pagan    186 

Pauline  teaching  of 192 

Vital  process  of 198 

Augustine.  .49,  183,  204,  218, 

219 

Aurelius,  Marcus 30,  104 

Babylonia  78 

Barnabas    141 

Barrow,  Bishop    94 

Beatitudes,   of  Luke 4,  5 

Of  Matthew   5,  6 

Bernard  of  Clairvaux   ...104 

245 


Page 

Bible   ix,  xxiii,  34 

Infallibility  of xviii 

Origin   xviii 

Place  in  religion xviii 

Schools    xi 

Biology,  study  of 89 

Blood  atonement   194 

Brotherhood,  of  Kingdom.  91 

Buddha 39,  52 

Bunyan,  John 85,  155 

Cfesar,  Augustus 98 

Calvin,  John.. 4,  149,  176,  218 

Calvanism  171,  175 

Catholics    xi,  33 

Cephas  141 

Christ,  death  of 201 

"Chosen"  people 68 

Life    110 

Work   114 

Christianity   xv,  66 

Errors  of 214,  215 

Failure  of    97 

What  is  it?  . .  .209,  213,  219, 
226,  233 

Chrysostum    115 

Church  of  the  Messiah. .  .226 

Church,  the 211,  212 

Clement    218 

Coins    25 

Collyer,  Robert 226 

Community       Church       of 

New  York 227 

Comte  52,  234 

Confucius 1,  39 

Constantine    77,   150 

Conversion   83 

"Corban"    57 

Corinthians 120,  134 

Cult  of  Comte 52 

Cybele   99 

Dionysius   99 

Peter  and  Paul 96 


246 


INDEX 


Page 

Cybele   99 

Cynics   105 

Damascus 140,  151,  153 

Dante    169 

David   14,  73 

Day  of  Atonement 200 

Decatur xxiii 

Deliverance    100 

Individual    106 

Promised    106 

Way  of  203 

Deliverer..  167,   198,   205,  221 
Democracy.  .226,  227,  228,  232 

Its  mediocrity 230 

Its  efficiency    231 

Defects,  remedy  for   ...231 

De  Monarchia  169 

Dionysius,    cult   of    99 

Disciple  of  Jesus,  defined. Ill 

Divine  revelation 33 

Catholic   theory   of 33 

Protestant  theory  of 33 

Spirit 19 

Doctrine  of  justification.  .198 

Of  total  depravity.  .169,  170 

Domitan  xx 

Ecclesia    210 

Edwards,    Jonathan    103 

Egypt    78 

Election,  interpretation  of.l71 

By  Luther   172 

By  Paul   172,  175 

A  Jewish  idea   173 

Incompatible    doctrine.  .175 

Elijah   49,  174 

Elisha    68 

Elizabethan  period    95 

Empires,     Assyria,     Baby- 
lonia, Egypt,  Persia   ...  78 

Epictetus    104 

Epistles  of  Paul  ix 

Erasmus   4 

Ethical  penalty    164 

Transgression    164 

Ethics,  defined    235 

Evangelicals xi,  84 


Fatherhood  of  God  65,  66,  170 
Fellowship  defined 112 


Page 
First  commandment  of  the 

law    70 

Gospel   50 

Followers  of  Jesus   82 

Forgive,   Greek  derivation 

of 195,  196 

Forgiveness,  defined   179 

Divine   179 

Of  God 180,  181,  182 

Of  sins 184 

Fourth  Gospel  20,  28,  69,  108, 
209 

Fox,  George 32 

Francis  of  Assisi 94,  154 

Friends   31 

Galilee 21,  63,  171 

Scenes  in    21 

Gamaliel    218 

School  of    158 

Gehenna    102 

Genesis  x,  xi,  223 

To  Revelation  135 

Gnosticism   159 

God  as  Sovereign 154 

God's  Law   163 

Love,  extent  of 103 

Good    Samaritan    73 

"Gospel,"  definition  of 108 

First 50 

Fourth   ....28,  69,  108,  209 

Of  Jesus  64 

Great  Commission  67 

Greco-Roman    civilization .  218 

Greek   theories 104,   105 

Art  105 

Ethics 105 

Green,  Prof.  Thomas  H.  .  .227 
Grotius    186 

Hagar    136 

Harrison,   Frederic    234 

Hebrew  poetry 10.  11,  12, 

17,  18,  22,  23,  24,  25 

Hedonism 104,    226,   236 

Hegel    61,  227 

Hell,  definitions  of   102 

Herod    49 

"Holiness,"  conception  of  113 
Service  of    114 


INDEX 


247 


Page 

Holy  Catholic  Church 77 

Of  Holies 200,  207 

Spirit    180 

Dwells  in   believers    148 

Spoke  through  Paul..  144 

Individualism  in  religion . .  90 
Infallibility,  demand  for..  34 

Inspiration     34 

Insufficiency  of  formal  obe- 
dience  197 

Irenseus 9 

Isaiah    14 

James    141 

Jehovah.  .34,  98,  113,  173,  183 

Jehoshua,  meaning  of 98 

Jeremiah    49 

Jerusalem     78 

Destruction  of    62 

Jesus 

Condemns  wealth. .  .  .94,  05 

Crucifixion  of   49 

Death  of 201 

Duties  to  man 71,  75 

Ethical  teachiuss  of...  96 
Great  paradox  of..  106,  107 
Injunction  to  disciples.  .147 

Message  of 76 

Mission  of    98 

Name  of  derivation 98 

Not  a  professor  of  sociol- 
ogy    89 

Personality  of 137,  138 

Prophet   and   teacher...  28 
Authority  as... 28,  29,  30 

Epigrams 41,  42 

Ethical  sobriety 39,  40 

Hyperbole  of 41,  42 

Irony  of., .  44,  45,  46,  47 
Metaphors  used.. 35,  36,  37 

Metho-is  of    .  30 

Paradox  of  41,  42 

Simplicity  of 32 

Theology  of 33 

Wit  and  humor  of .  .37,  38, 
39,  40,  41,  43 
The  Herald  of  the  King- 
dom      76 

Goal  of  84 


Page 
The  Herald  of  the  Kingdom 

The  Messiah 31,  59,  60, 

140,  157,  158,  205 

The  peasant  poet 1,  9, 

10,  14 

Education  of  2 

The  people's  poet 13 

Human  interests,  love 

of  poor   20 

Love  of  nature 14,  15, 

18,  19 

The  revealer  of  God 54 

Instruction  in  laws    .  63 
Recognition      by      Gali- 
leans      49 

Sends  out  disciples  52,  56 

Sets  aside  laws 63 

The     Saviour     of      the 

World    98 

The   Son  of  God 59 

The  theologian   178 

Jesus  of  Nazareth..  .148,  156 
Discourse  at  Nazareth.  173 

Public  life  of 148 

Works  of    167 

Jewish  sacrifices 157 

Jews ix,  68,  92,  116 

Johannine  writings  69 

John XX,  141,  161 

The  Baptist 49,  102 

Josephus  2 

Judaeo-pagan    nations 159 

Justification     for     punish- 
ment     165 

Kipling    89 

Kingdom  of  God 76,  77.  78, 

79,  81,  82,  87,  88,  100,  105, 
148,  170,  171,  209 

Coming  of    Ill 

Orthodoxy  of 176 

Law  of  the  Jungle,  the. .  90 

Levi,  tribe  of   92 

"Life,"  defined    108 

Ivord's  Supper 134 

Louis   Quatorze    95 

Lowell   113 

Luke  67,  185 

Luther,  Martin. 4,  86,  155,  199 


248 


INDEX 


Page 

Malachi    92 

Mammon,  worship  of 93 

Marcan   discourse    62 

Mark   15,  62,  185 

Matthew    67,  185 

Melanchthon 108,  149 

Message  of  Jesus 76,  184 

Messiah   156,  157 

Messianic  hopes  156 

Messianic  work   157 

Micah    14 

Millenial  doctrine  xx 

Milton    135 

Mohammed 1,  39,  236 

Mohammedamism    ...xvi,  236 

Moses 14,  39,  56,  72,  155 

Book  of 31 

Mystics    105,   106 

Naaman   68,  174 

Nazareth   167,  174 

Nero    XX 

New  Christianity   ...211,  212 

Jerusalem    102 

Testament. ix,  xvii,  76,  81, 

83,  86,  183,  206,  228,  238 

Nietzsche's   superman    ...224 

Nicodemas 44,  111 

Old  Testament  Scriptures,  2, 
101,  144,  156,  159,  183 

Omar   194 

Origen  218 

Palestine,  fauna 18 

Landscape    15 

Life    15 

Palm  Sunday 47 

Parables,  of  lost  coin 167 

Lost  sheep   167 

Lost  son   167 

Mark's  16,  17,  18 

Pharisee  and  publican.  .180 

Signilicance  of   68 

Two  slaves 73 

Paraclete,     the    spirit    of 

truth 147,  150 

Paradise  Lost  10 

Paul XV,  56,  66,  69,  92,  96, 

97,  101 


Page 
Paul,  the  ambassador   ...162 

The  apostle,  code  of 138 

Conversion  of   140 

Exhortations  of   136 

Influence  of  Christ  on..  142 

Making  of   137 

Meditation  of   141 

Mission  of   14] 

Personality  of 138 

Paul,  the  Christian  Rabbi.161 

The  evangelist 118 

The  scapegoat 183 

The    speculative    theolo- 
gian     178 

Paulicians    219 

Pauline  theology   158 

Gospel   183 

Teaching 191 

Writings  199 

Paulinism 184,  218,  220, 

224,  226 

Paul's  apostolic  call 149 

Conception  of  God 162 

Doctrine  of  atonement.  .187, 

188,  189,  190,  204,  205 

Doctrine  of  the  cross..  159 

Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  199 

Epistles 221 

Ethics     compared     with 

Jesus 132,   134,  135,  136 

Exegesis  of   Old  Testa- 
ment     136 

Gospel 142,  145 

Great  doctrines 222 

Humor   126,  127 

Idea  of  "Law"   197 

Irony   128 

Justification  of  self   ...157 

Loyalty   to   Master 155 

Maxims  133 

References 123,  124, 

125,  126 

Relation  to  Jesus 142 

Revelations 142,   143, 

144,  145 

Sarcasm    128 

Wit 126,  127 

Writings     119 

Literary  forms  of . .    128, 
131 


INDEX 


Page 

Writings 

To    Corinthians    120 

To  Ephesians 121-133 

To  Gallatians 123,  136. 

144,  158 

To  Romans 120,  144,  158 

Pentateuch  118 

Perieope   xx 

Persecution    xx 

Persia    78 

Person  and  office  of  Christ  97 
Perversion  of  teachings  of 

Jesus   97 

Peter    32,   96 

Fall 96,  97 

Pharisees 36,  47,  56,  57, 

58,  72 

Pilate    169 

Pilgrim's  Progress 10,  86 

Pope,  infallibility  of 148 

Positivism    234 

Poverty     94 

Premillennarians xx,   xxi 

Priests    50,    51 

Procrustes,  bed  of   215 

Prodigal    168 

Prolegomena     ix-xxiii 

Prophets   50 

Propitiation   207 

Protestant    religion,    form 
of    85 

Churches    99 

Providence  of  God 171 

Purification  for  sins 200 

Puritans,  superstitions....  39 

Temperament    43 

Quietism   225 

Rabbi     147 

Redemption 109,  110 

Reformation    4,  86 

Religion,  defined 215,  216 

Of  democracy   1 36 

Origin    22,') 

Philosophy  of 234,  235 

Renaissance    95 

Renan    37 

Renunciation,  law  of 109 

Repentence,  defined 81,  83 


249 

Page 

Revelation x,  xi,  xix,  102 

Revivals    99 

Roman   Catholics,   mission 

of    99 

Empire. .  .xx,  77,  78,  79,  161 

Imperator    77 

Law    176 

Ruskin  109,  232 

Sacrifices    190 

Sacrificial  system  of  Jews  200 

Sadducees    31 

Salvation,  defined 110,  166 

For  the  Jew  alone 174 

Ideals   of    104 

Ideas  of..  100,  104,  166,  224 

Nature   of    99 

Right  view  of  112 

Samuel    14 

Sanhedrin     60 

Saul   140 

Appearance  of  Jesus  to 

140,  151,  152 

Alone     151 

Effect  of  vision  on  Saul  154 

Not  objective 152 

To  Saul's  spirit 152,  153 

The   Urban    Pharisee. .  .115 

Ambitions 117 

Boyhood    116 

Conversion   118 

Denial    of    Jesus 140 

Education     118 

Environment    119 

Hatred  of  Jesus 139 

Inspirations    121,  122 

Parentage     115 

Persecution      of     Chris- 
tians     139 

Savage.  Minot  J 226 

"Saviour"    and    "Messiah" 

one  to  Jews Ill 

Septuagint 136,    207 

Sermon  on  the  Mount.  .44,  45, 
51.55,105,  170,  171,  196 

Siddhartha    1 

Sin 

Rabbinic   theology   of... 159 

Ideas  of    1()(> 

Theological  notion  of...  169 


250 

Page 

Sin 

Forgiveness  of    178 

Remission  of   185 

Deliverance  from   185 

Expiation    of     193 

Escape  from    193 

Acquittal  from    199 

Social  gospel  of  Jesus Ill 

Socinus    186 

Socrates   1,  46,  63 

Solidarity  of  God  and  man  92 

Sources  x 

Sovereignty  of  God. .  .161,  163 

Spirit  of  Truth 202 

Stewardship     91 

Stoics    105 

Sunday,  Billy    100 

Synoptic  gospels    4 

Talmud    118 

Temple  47,  51,  61,  69 

Testament,  old 2,  101,  144, 

156,  159,  183 

New.  .ix,  xvii,  76,  81,  83,  86, 

183,  206,  228,  238 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia . .  115 

"Theologian"    161 

Theology,  changes  in   214 

Distinctive   133 

Problem  of 216 

Science  of 176 


INDEX 

Page 

Thessalonica    117 

Tithe,  Jewish  idea  of 91 

Truth,    204 

Tyndale    207 

Unity  of  belief  113 

Valentinian    159 

Vanity  Fair 86 

Vicarious,  sacrifice . . .  189,  195 

Sufeering    205 

Virtue  and  Vice,  compared  236 
Vocabulary  of  religion 112 

Need  of  change  in 112 

Wealth,  benefits  of 95 

Exploitation  of 93,  94 

Moralizing  of    95 

Weizsacker    210 

Wells,  H.  G.,  definition  of 

religion    110 

Woes,    6,  7 

Workingman,  attitude  of  229, 

230 

Wrath  of  God 101 

Zaccheus    71 

Salvation  of    167 

Zarephath    174 

Zoroaster    1 


''iiKi?iiiiiIfM±?'^^'  Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012   01198   6454 


Date  Due       ^^^^^ 

'^ 

fjggjKf^^^  -   ■  «- 

^ 

mmm 


i 


^:J^M!i0:-iSm 


■'^h:iW0;- 


BMSM^. 


